<?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" article-type="research-article">
  <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-14-4517-2021</article-id><title-group><article-title>Sizing response of the Ultra-High Sensitivity Aerosol Spectrometer (UHSAS) and Laser Aerosol Spectrometer (LAS) to changes in submicron aerosol composition and refractive index</article-title><alt-title>UHSAS and LAS response to refractive index​​​​​​​</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{UHSAS and LAS response to refractive index​​​​​​​}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{R. H. Moore et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Moore</surname><given-names>Richard H.</given-names></name>
          <email>richard.h.moore@nasa.gov</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2911-4469</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Wiggins</surname><given-names>Elizabeth B.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3 aff4">
          <name><surname>Ahern</surname><given-names>Adam T.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3461-2673</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Zimmerman</surname><given-names>Stephen</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Montgomery</surname><given-names>Lauren</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4 aff5">
          <name><surname>Campuzano Jost</surname><given-names>Pedro</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3930-010X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff6">
          <name><surname>Robinson</surname><given-names>Claire E.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Ziemba</surname><given-names>Luke D.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff6">
          <name><surname>Winstead</surname><given-names>Edward L.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Anderson</surname><given-names>Bruce E.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Brock</surname><given-names>Charles A.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4033-4668</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff6">
          <name><surname>Brown</surname><given-names>Matthew D.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2058-2442</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>Gao</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff6">
          <name><surname>Crosbie</surname><given-names>Ewan C.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4 aff5">
          <name><surname>Guo</surname><given-names>Hongyu</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0487-3610</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4 aff5">
          <name><surname>Jimenez</surname><given-names>Jose L.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6203-1847</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff7">
          <name><surname>Jordan</surname><given-names>Carolyn E.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8164-5967</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff8">
          <name><surname>Lyu</surname><given-names>Ming</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4 aff5 aff10">
          <name><surname>Nault</surname><given-names>Benjamin A.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9464-4787</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff9">
          <name><surname>Rothfuss</surname><given-names>Nicholas E.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1495-1902</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Sanchez</surname><given-names>Kevin J.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4456-0918</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4 aff5">
          <name><surname>Schueneman</surname><given-names>Melinda</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4359-1472</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Shingler</surname><given-names>Taylor J.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Shook</surname><given-names>Michael A.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2659-484X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff6">
          <name><surname>Thornhill</surname><given-names>Kenneth L.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3 aff4">
          <name><surname>Wagner</surname><given-names>Nicholas L.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff9">
          <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>Jian</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2815-4170</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>NASA Postdoctoral Program, Universities Space Research Association,
Columbia, MD, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>NOAA Chemical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Department of Chemistry, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>Science Systems and Applications, Inc., Hampton, VA, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff7"><label>7</label><institution>National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, VA, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff8"><label>8</label><institution>Department of Chemistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada​​​​​​​</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff9"><label>9</label><institution>Center for Aerosol Science and Engineering, Department of Energy, Environmental and Chemical Engineering,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff10"><label>a</label><institution>now at: Center for Aerosol and Cloud Chemistry, Aerodyne Research,
Inc., Billerica, MA, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Richard H. Moore (richard.h.moore@nasa.gov)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>18</day><month>June</month><year>2021</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>14</volume>
      <issue>6</issue>
      <fpage>4517</fpage><lpage>4542</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>4</day><month>February</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>2</day><month>March</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>29</day><month>April</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>13</day><month>May</month><year>2021</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2021 Richard H. Moore 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/14/4517/2021/amt-14-4517-2021.html">This article is available from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/4517/2021/amt-14-4517-2021.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/4517/2021/amt-14-4517-2021.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/4517/2021/amt-14-4517-2021.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e384">We evaluate the sensitivity of the size calibrations of
two commercially available, high-resolution optical particle sizers to
changes in aerosol composition and complex refractive index (RI). The
Droplet Measurement Technologies Ultra-High Sensitivity Aerosol Spectrometer (UHSAS) and the TSI, Inc. Laser Aerosol Spectrometer (LAS) are
two commonly used instruments for measuring the portion of the aerosol size
distribution with diameters larger than nominally 60–90 nm. Both instruments
illuminate particles with a laser and relate the single-particle light
scattering intensity and count rate measured over a wide range of angles to
the size-dependent particle concentration. While the optical block geometry
and flow system are similar for each instrument, a significant difference
between the two models is the laser wavelength (1054 nm for the UHSAS and
633 nm for the LAS) and intensity (about 100 times higher for the UHSAS), which
may affect the way each instrument sizes non-spherical or absorbing
aerosols. Here, we challenge the UHSAS and LAS with laboratory-generated,
mobility-size-classified aerosols of known chemical composition to quantify
changes in the optical size response relative to that of ammonium sulfate
(RI of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.52</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at 532 nm) and NIST-traceable polystyrene latex spheres
(PSLs with RI of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.59</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at 589 nm). Aerosol inorganic salt species are
chosen to cover the real refractive index range of 1.32 to 1.78, while
chosen light-absorbing carbonaceous aerosols include fullerene soot,
nigrosine dye, humic acid, and fulvic acid standards. The instrument
response is generally in good agreement with the electrical mobility
diameter. However, large undersizing deviations are observed for the
low-refractive-index fluoride salts and the strongly absorbing nigrosine dye and fullerene soot particles. Polydisperse size<?pagebreak page4518?> distributions for both fresh
and aged wildfire smoke aerosols from the recent Fire Influence on Regional
to Global Environments Experiment and Air Quality (FIREX-AQ) and the Cloud,
Aerosol, and Monsoon Processes Philippines Experiment (CAMP<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Ex)
airborne campaigns show good agreement between both optical sizers and
contemporaneous electrical mobility sizing and particle time-of-flight mass
spectrometric measurements. We assess the instrument uncertainties by
interpolating the laboratory response curves using previously reported RIs
and size distributions for multiple aerosol type classifications. These
results suggest that, while the optical sizers may underperform for strongly
absorbing laboratory compounds and fresh tailpipe emissions measurements,
sampling aerosols within the atmospherically relevant range of refractive
indices are likely to be sized to better than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 %–20 % uncertainty over the submicron aerosol size range when using instruments calibrated with
ammonium sulfate.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e440">The size distribution and optical properties of atmospheric aerosols are
important primary inputs to radiative transfer calculations of direct
climatic effects. The optically active particle size range (larger than
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50–80 nm diameters) also corresponds to the subset of
particles that can act as cloud condensation nuclei and further impact
clouds and climate indirectly. Consequently, most recent field campaigns
include measurements of the number size distribution and its higher moments
from some combination of mobility, optical, and aerodynamic sizing. Of these
techniques, modern optical particle sizers are ideal for covering the size
range of interest, with both high size resolution and the high time
resolution needed for airborne observations. However, it is well known that
optical particle sizer measurements depend not only on the particle
geometric size, but also on the light source wavelength(s), scattering
geometry of the instrument, and the particle morphology and complex
refractive index (RI; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). A particle with an imaginary
refractive index component (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) of zero does not absorb light and is purely
scattering. Under some environmental conditions, this dependency can be
exploited to derive the particle effective density, shape factor, and/or RI
in addition to the size distribution by combining the optical sizer with
instruments based on other particle sizing techniques (e.g., electrical
mobility or aerodynamic particle sizing) using the so-called “alignment
method” (Hand and Kreidenweis, 2002). Zimmerman et al. (2015)
attempted to apply this method using combined scanning electrical mobility
particle classification followed by UHSAS and LAS sizing of
laboratory-generated aerosols of varying complex RI but found limited
dynamic range in particle size changes for purely scattering particles
smaller than 550 nm diameter and significant undersizing for absorbing
species. Moore et al. (2017) used a UHSAS to measure the size
distribution of fresh aircraft engine soot, which required recalibration of
the UHSAS instrument size bins with size-classified Mini-CAST soot aerosols
(using a differential mobility analyzer, DMA) in order to shift the UHSAS
soot particle size distributions larger to be consistent with those from a
scanning mobility particle sizer. Recent work during the Atmospheric
Tomography Mission (ATom) and Observations of Aerosols Above Clouds and
their Interactions (ORACLES) field campaigns suggests that the undersizing
of the absorbing aerosol particles by the UHSAS may be due to particle
vaporization by the high instrument laser power similar to that observed in
the single-particle soot photometer, SP2 (Kupc et al., 2018; Howell et
al., 2020). However, that explanation would not explain the similar
undersizing reported by Zimmerman et al. (2015) for the LAS with much
lower laser power.</p>
      <p id="d1e475">Numerous estimates of RI for atmospherically relevant aerosol particles at
visible wavelengths have been reported in the scientific literature from
both in situ and remote sensing observations. It is essential to distinguish
between measurements made under dry conditions and those made under ambient
(i.e., elevated relative humidity) conditions as most airborne in situ
measurements fall into the former category, while most of the remote sensing
measurements fall into the latter category. The RI of a hydrated aerosol
particle is typically lower than its dry RI because of the contribution of
the condensed water (real RI of 1.33), and the RI of the aqueous solution
has been shown to scale with the solute mass fraction (Tang and
Munkelwitz, 1991, 1994). Here, we give a brief overview of some prior
measurements of dry, submicron aerosol RIs since these are the conditions
relevant for the typical UHSAS and LAS modes of operation.</p>
      <p id="d1e478">Dry aerosol RIs measured for diverse air mass types over the United States
during the NASA Studies of Emissions and Atmospheric Composition, Clouds,
and Climate Coupling by Regional Surveys (SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS) field campaign show
remarkably constant average values for the real RI component at 532 nm
wavelength near 1.52, where the interquartile range of observations varied
between 1.49 and 1.55 for urban, marine, and biogenic air types as well as
for both wildland fires and agricultural biomass burning plumes (Shingler
et al., 2016; Aldhaif et al., 2018). Chamber studies of secondary organic
aerosol (SOA) formation from biogenic precursors under low-NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
conditions yield aerosols with real refractive indices near 1.44, while
anthropogenic SOA exhibit a higher RI around 1.55 (Kim and
Paulson, 2013). SOA aging appears to lead to small changes in the real RI
whose direction depends on the specific chemistry. For example,
He et al. (2018) show that biogenic SOAs formed in an oxidation
flow reactor are non-absorbing between 400–650 nm wavelengths, and the real
RI decreases from approximately 1.55 to 1.45 with increasing OH exposure.
Meanwhile, Cappa et al. (2011) found that organic aerosol
real RIs increased from near 1.47 to 1.52–1.54 with increasing OH oxidation
lifetime for squalene and azelaic acid systems. Retrieved real RI<?pagebreak page4519?> values of
1.56–1.59 for wildland fire smoke particles were obtained via the alignment
method during the Yosemite Aerosol Characterization Study (YACS) field
campaign, which were in reasonable agreement with the RI calculated as a
volume-weighted mean from the simultaneously measured particle chemical
composition (McMeeking et al., 2005). Laboratory
measurements of biomass burning aerosols from multiple studies find a
similar range of values for the real refractive index (1.54–1.67), while
also placing constraints on the range of imaginary RIs of 0.002–0.22 for a
diverse set of fuels and fire conditions (Mack et al., 2010; Hungershoefer
et al., 2008; Sumlin et al., 2018). Shepherd et al. (2018) quantified the real RI for insoluble organic aerosol extracts for
samples collected in London (urban), Antarctica (remote), and air influenced
by woodsmoke. They found that the aerosol real RI at 589 nm wavelength
increased from remote (1.47) to urban (1.48–1.52) to woodsmoke (1.58). The
low value of the real RI for organic aerosols sampled in Antarctica is
consistent with Jurányi and Weller (2019), who derived a
real RI of 1.44 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.08 via the alignment of aerosol size distributions
obtained with an electrical mobility sizer and a LAS. In summary, past
measurements of submicron atmospheric aerosols suggest that the real RI at
visible wavelengths is close to that for ammonium sulfate and sodium
chloride (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.52–1.54), with some suggestion that organic-rich
SOA and remote aerosols may exhibit slightly lower real RIs (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.45–1.52), while biomass burning particles may exhibit
slightly higher real RIs (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.54–1.60). Inorganic aerosols
and SOA tend to be non-absorbing at the longer visible to near-infrared
wavelengths, while biomass burning particles are likely to be weakly
absorbing near the emission source (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1)
(Forrister et al., 2015). It is also known that biomass
burning aerosols undergo rapid evolution in the atmosphere and become even
less absorbing after only a few hours
(Kleinman et al., 2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e563">The goals of this study are to understand how changes in the aerosol complex
RI may impact the optical sizing from the LAS and UHSAS and to look for
evidence of size distribution biases for both laboratory-generated aerosols
and fresh-to-aged biomass burning plumes undergoing rapid evolution in the
atmosphere. Simple theoretical calculations are performed to contextualize
the experimental results. This work should be of interest to current UHSAS
or LAS users interested in constraining their measurement uncertainties as
well as those seeking to understand the performance trade-offs of each
instrument in sizing submicron aerosols in both laboratory and ambient
settings.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Instrument descriptions</title>
      <p id="d1e581">The TSI Laser Aerosol Spectrometer (LAS; Model 3340A;
<ext-link xlink:href="https://www.tsi.com/products/particle-sizers/particle-size-spectrometers/laser-aerosol-spectrometer-3340a/">https://www.tsi.com/products/particle-sizers/particle-size- spectrometers/laser-aerosol-spectrometer-3340a/</ext-link>, last access: 14 June 2021)
uses a helium–neon gas laser (intracavity power <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1–10 W)
that operates in the TEM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">00</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> spatial mode at 633 nm wavelength with a
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> intensity diameter of approximately 400 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m (TSI, 2015).
The particle-laden air stream is drawn into the instrument and is focused by
a 500 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m diameter sample flow nozzle surrounded by a 760 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m diameter sheath flow nozzle. As each particle traverses the laser, it
scatters light that is collected by two pairs of wide-angle Mangin mirrors,
with one pair focusing the scattered light onto an avalanche photo diode
(APD) and the other pair focusing the light onto a low-gain PIN photodiode.
The photocurrent signals from each detector are converted to voltages, which
are then fed to four different gain stages (G3 and G2 are the high gain and
low gain for the APD, respectively; G1 and G0 are the high gain and low gain
for the PIN photodiode, respectively). Peak hold circuits for each gain
stage track the rise of the scattering intensity as the particle crosses the
laser, and the peak signal is digitized for subsequent pulse height
analysis. Each particle event is triggered from the G3 detector when the
signal exceeds a user-specified threshold value, and the gain stage peak
signals are then sampled successively downward from G3 to find the first
gain stage that is not saturated. Finally, the instrument calibration is
used to find the corresponding size bin, and the counter for that bin is
incremented. Manufacturer specifications report that the LAS can detect
particles as small as 90 nm diameter with greater than 50 % efficiency and
as large as 7.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m diameter (TSI, 2015).</p>
      <p id="d1e651">The optical and flow systems of the Droplet Measurement Technologies (DMT)
Ultra-High Sensitivity Aerosol Spectrometer (UHSAS; Model G;
<uri>https://www.dropletmeasurement.com/product/ultra-high-sensitivity-aerosol-spectrometer/</uri>, last access: 14 June 2021)
are largely similar to those of the LAS, except for notable differences in
the laser power and wavelength. The UHSAS uses a Nd<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>:YLF solid state
laser (intracavity power <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1000 W) that operates in the
TEM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">00</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> spatial mode at 1054 nm wavelength, with a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> intensity
diameter of approximately 600 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m (DMT, 2006). Multiple papers
have noted the similarity between the UHSAS laser characteristics and those
of the laser used in the DMT SP2 to incandesce and vaporize black-carbon-containing particles (Kupc et al., 2018; Howell et al., 2020).
Consequently, the UHSAS might partially vaporize absorbing aerosol particles
and/or their coatings, which would result in them being undersized.
Manufacturer specifications report that the UHSAS can detect particles as
small as 55 nm diameter with greater than 50 % efficiency and as large as
1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m diameter (DMT, 2006).</p>
      <p id="d1e717">Individual particle-by-particle information such as peak signals is not
recorded by either the UHSAS or LAS software, so an accurate calibration is
essential for correctly assigning the particle scattering signals to their
respective size bins. Two different types of calibration information are
used<?pagebreak page4520?> by the data acquisition software and are stored in the instrument
configuration files: a relative calibration that scales and smooths the
transitions between adjacent gain stages (the so-called “stitching”
procedure) and an absolute calibration that quantitatively captures the
overall shape of the detector intensity versus particle size relationship.
The dependence of scattering intensity on particle diameter, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
depends on the particle size parameter, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the laser wavelength. For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>≪</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, scattering intensity
scales with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Rayleigh scattering), while for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>≫</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
scattering intensity scales with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (geometric scattering). For
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the Mie theory equations for the scattering intensity of a
spherical particle do not follow a simple scaling relationship. Thus, the
shape of the combined calibration curves for the UHSAS, and particularly the
lower wavelength LAS, needs to capture these three different regimes of Mie
theory across 6 decades of scattering intensity and 2 decades of
particle size. In practice, multiple curve fits are combined across each
regime using four to five calibration particle size points.</p>
      <p id="d1e823">The intracavity laser power of both instruments is monitored continuously
with a reference detector, which can be used to diagnose laser power drifts
or, mostly commonly, contamination of the optical windows of the sealed
optical block. Typically, the laser reference voltage is between 1.0–2.8 V
for the LAS, and lower reference voltages may change the absolute
calibration conversion from the detector voltages to particle size. Changes
in incident laser power may be less of a concern for the UHSAS with its
longer laser wavelength, as more of the lower end of the particle diameter
range is within the Rayleigh scattering regime (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>≪</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) where
particle size scales with the sixth root of scattering intensity
(DMT, 2006). However, potential calibration changes resulting from
laser power changes prior to or after optical window cleaning have not been
examined in the literature to date.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Mie theory calculations</title>
      <p id="d1e846">The light scattering properties of submicron, homogeneous spherical
particles are well described by Mie theory (Mie, 1908). Here, we
calculate the size-resolved particle scattering and extinction efficiencies
for particles of varying real and imaginary RI using the BHMIE code
(Bohren and Huffman, 1998), as implemented in the Igor Pro programming
language (WaveMetrics, Lake Oswego, OR, USA). The code is similar to that
available online at
<uri>http://cires1.colorado.edu/jimenez-group/wiki/index.php/Analysis_Software#Mie_Code</uri> (last access: 14 June 2021). Additional scattering and extinction
calculations integrated across the entire phase function are performed using
the MiePlot computer program (Laven, 2003), which is
available online at <uri>http://www.philiplaven.com/mieplot.htm</uri> (last access: 14 June 2021). Our goal is to
understand how changes in RI are likely to affect the particle scattering
signal detected by the optical particle sizers. We account for the complex
scattering geometry of the UHSAS and LAS by integrating the theoretical
scattering phase function over the previously reported UHSAS collection
angles of 33–147<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> with a hole in the center of this region
(72.5–104.8<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) where light is not sampled as described by
Kupc et al. (2018). In addition, we assume that the
particles are spherical and normalize their scattering cross-section to that
for ammonium sulfate in Fig. 1 in order to focus
on the relative scattering intensity changes as compared to the instrument
calibration aerosol (non-normalized, theoretical scattering cross-sections
for ammonium sulfate and PSLs are discussed in the next section). Figure 1a
(LAS) and Fig. 1b (UHSAS) suggest that both instruments would tend to
undersize non-absorbing, accumulation-mode particles with real refractive
indices less than that of the ammonium sulfate calibration standard of
1.52, while oversizing particles with larger real refractive indices. This
trend weakens as the particle size approaches and exceeds the instrument
laser wavelength. The influence of the longer wavelength UHSAS infrared
laser becomes especially apparent here, with the transition occurring near
600–700 nm diameters for the UHSAS versus near 400–500 nm diameters for the
LAS. Figure 1c (LAS) and Fig. 1d (LAS) show that an absorbing aerosol with
a real RI of 1.7 and non-zero imaginary component would be expected to be
oversized toward the lower end of the particle size range and undersized at
the upper end of the size range, which is consistent with a slice of the
surface at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in panels (a) and (b). Here, we choose to examine the
variable <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as it is known that absorbing brown and black carbon
have higher real RIs than ammonium sulfate, and this value is in the middle
of the range between reported values for biomass burning aerosols (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.55</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–1.65) and black carbon (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.85–1.95). It is also
consistent with prior estimates for biomass burning organic aerosol species
(Saleh et al., 2014). As the aerosol becomes more strongly
absorbing and the imaginary RI increases, Fig. 1c and d indicate that the
smallest particles are oversized even more significantly, while larger
particles are undersized. The transition from oversizing to undersizing is
expected to be more pronounced for the LAS than the UHSAS.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e933">Mie theory calculations of size-resolved particle scattering
normalized to that for ammonium sulfate (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.52</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) at the LAS laser
wavelength of 633 nm <bold>(a, c)</bold> and the UHSAS laser wavelength of 1054 nm <bold>(b, d)</bold>. In panels <bold>(a)</bold> and <bold>(b)</bold>, the imaginary part of the refractive index is held constant at zero, while for panels <bold>(c)</bold> and <bold>(d)</bold>, the real part of the refractive is held constant at 1.7. The colored shading represents the ratio of the
theoretical particle scattering cross section, while the contours
approximate the expected sizing ratio, which is assumed to be equal to the
sixth root of the scattering cross section ratio (reasonable for diameters
below 300–600 nm). Average number size distribution modes for relevant
atmospheric aerosol types from Shingler et al. (2016) are shown above panels <bold>(a)</bold> and <bold>(b)</bold> to illustrate the typical atmospheric aerosol size range, while the range of real RIs reported by Aldhaif et
al. (2018) are shown to the right of these panels to illustrate the typical
range of atmospherically relevant real RIs.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/4517/2021/amt-14-4517-2021-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e981">In addition to the theoretical calculations for the UHSAS optical geometry,
we also examine the total scattering intensity integrated over all angles
(see Figs. S1–S4 in the Supplement), which show very similar trends for the
accumulation-mode size ratio. More significant differences become apparent
at larger sizes, when the aerosol scattering phase function is strongly
biased in the forward direction.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e988">Summary of investigated chemical compounds and their refractive
indices as reported in the literature.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="justify" colwidth="3.8cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="justify" colwidth="3.9cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="justify" colwidth="4.2cm"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Chemical compound</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Type</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Refractive index (Wavelength)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Reference</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sodium fluoride</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Non-absorbing</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.32</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (630–1050 nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Li (1976)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Lithium fluoride</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Non-absorbing</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.39</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (630–1050 nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Li (1976)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Ammonium sulfate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Non-absorbing</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.52</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (532 nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Toon et al. (1976)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sodium chloride</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Non-absorbing</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.54</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (630–1050 nm) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.546</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.003</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (532 nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Li (1976) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Abo Riziq et al. (2007)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Polystyrene latex spheres <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(PSLs)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Non-absorbing</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.57</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (700 nm) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.58</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0004</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (630 nm) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.58</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (1050 nm) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.59</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (589 nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">He et al. (2018) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Ma et al. (2003) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Ma et al. (2003) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Manufacturer (ThermoScientific)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Lithium chloride</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Non-absorbing</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.66</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (630–1050 nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Li (1976)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Lithium bromide</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Non-absorbing</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.78</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (630–1050 nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Li (1976)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Suwannee River fulvic acid</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Weakly absorbing</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.63</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.004</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (630 nm) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.55</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.03</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (700 nm) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.63</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.02</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (532 nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Bluvshtein et al. (2016) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>He et al. (2018) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Dinar et al. (2008)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Suwannee River humic acid</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Weakly absorbing</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Pahokee peat humic acid</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Weakly absorbing</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.59</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (630 nm) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.56</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.03</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (532 nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Bluvshtein et al. (2016) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Michel Flores et al. (2012)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fullerene soot</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Strongly absorbing</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Estimated to be near <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Moteki and Kondo (2010)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Nigrosine dye</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Strongly absorbing</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.67</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.26</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (662 nm) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.63</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.24</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (532 nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Garvey and Pinnick (1983) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Michel Flores et al. (2012)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1496">The contribution of absorption and scattering to the overall particle light
extinction is commonly parameterized as a single-scattering albedo (SSA),
which is the ratio of the particle scattering coefficient to the extinction
coefficient. Theoretical SSAs integrated across all scattering angles for
size-resolved absorbing aerosol (real RI of 1.7 and variable imaginary RI)
are shown in Fig. 2 for the laser wavelengths<?pagebreak page4521?> of
the LAS (panel a) and UHSAS (panel b). First, it is instructive to examine
the SSA and imaginary RI relationship for the visible LAS laser wavelength
(Fig. 2a), since this is near the visible
wavelengths at which SSA data are commonly reported. The relationship
between SSA and imaginary RI is fairly monotonic in the instrument sizing
range. Past literature indicates that the SSA of atmospheric aerosols far
from emissions sources is close to unity, while lower values near 0.80–0.9
have been observed for fresh biomass burning plumes (Kleinman et al.,
2020; Selimovic et al., 2019; Eck et al., 2013). Laboratory-generated
combustion sources yield aerosol with even lower SSAs, approaching 0.2–0.4
for fire lab measurements (Pokhrel et al.,
2016). Meanwhile, Kim et al. (2015) report SSAs below 0.1
for propane burner flame soot, which is comprised of black carbon (retrieved
RI of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.63</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at 660 nm wavelength) and organic material (retrieved RI of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.47</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.02</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at 660 nm wavelength). From
Fig. 2a, we might then regard particles with
imaginary RI greater than 0.1 and SSAs smaller than about 0.6 as strongly
absorbing aerosols, while non-zero imaginary RIs less than 0.05 and SSAs
greater than about 0.8 are considered to be weakly absorbing aerosols. This
categorization is consistent with the descriptors used in
Table 1 for the laboratory experiments described in
the next section.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1546">Mie theory calculations of size-resolved particle
single-scattering albedo for varying imaginary refractive indices at the LAS
laser wavelength of 633 nm <bold>(a)</bold> and the UHSAS laser wavelength of 1054 nm <bold>(b)</bold>. The real part of the refractive is held constant at 1.7. Unlike Fig. 1, these SSA values are computed from the total aerosol scattering and extinction coefficients that are integrated across all angles of the phase function.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/4517/2021/amt-14-4517-2021-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1561">Figure 2 also tells us that as particles get smaller
in the Rayleigh regime, their absorption decreases more slowly than their
scattering. Consequently, the SSAs for the UHSAS laser wavelength tend to be
lower than for the LAS laser wavelength. This occurs even as an increase in
the real RI would enhance the overall particle scattering and expected
instrument response (Fig. 1c, d).</p>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page4522?><sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Laboratory experimental setup</title>
      <p id="d1e1572">We challenge the UHSAS and LAS instruments using dry, size-classified
particles of varying complex RI. A list of the investigated chemical species
is given in Table 1. Each species is dissolved in 18 M<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> ultrapure Milli-Q water, and a medical nebulizer is used to
introduce the particles into a filtered air stream. Particles in the sample
flow are subsequently dried by a silica gel diffusion dryer to less than
20 % relative humidity (RH), charged with a Po<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">210</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> radioactive bipolar
charger, and size-classified with a scanning electrical mobility sizer
(SEMS; Brechtel Model 2002) system that is operated at constant voltage. The
monodisperse output flow from the SEMS is combined with filtered makeup air
and then split between the UHSAS, the LAS, and a condensation particle
counter (CPC; TSI Model 3775). The amount of filtered makeup air is adjusted
to ensure approximately 1 L min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" 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> aerosol flow through the SEMS, while
the sheath flow is set at either 10.0 L min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" 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 particle diameters
less than approximately 550 nm or 5.0 L min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" 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 larger particles.
This change in the sheath : aerosol flow ratio results in broader peaks for
the larger particles, but it does not change the peak mode diameter observed
by the optical sizers, which is obtained from a Gaussian curve fit to the
most prominent size distribution peak. We ignore any less prominent,
larger diameter peaks resulting from the presence of multiply charged
particles. The SEMS differential mobility analyzer (DMA) is optimized for
larger particles up to and exceeding 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m in diameter at a reasonable
5 : 1 sheath : aerosol flow ratio. In addition, we do not apply any
size-dependent counting efficiency corrections to the data from either the
UHSAS or LAS.</p>
      <p id="d1e1636">The SEMS software solves the DMA transfer function in order to set the
appropriate voltage for a given particle diameter and sheath flow.
NIST-traceable polystyrene latex spheres (PSLs; ThermoFisher Scientific 3000
and 4000 series nanoparticles) are used to verify the transfer function
calculations and proper operation of the system. For each PSL standard, the
SEMS diameter is varied stepwise, and the CPC number concentration is
recorded, resulting in the peaks in the lower half of
Fig. 3a and in Fig. 3b. Each peak is fit to a
normal distribution, and the peak mobility mode diameters are compared to
the reported PSL mode diameters in the upper half of
Fig. 3a with excellent agreement (slope of
0.996 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.003).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1648">SEMS DMA sizing verification with NIST-traceable polystyrene latex
spheres (PSLs) size standards. Panel <bold>(a)</bold> compares the PSL mode and SEMS fit mode mobility diameters (top) and the fits to the CPC concentration peaks (bottom) in terms of SEMS mobility diameter. Panel <bold>(b)</bold> expresses the CPC concentration peaks in terms of the SEMS mobility diameter divided by the SEMS fit mode mobility diameter.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=170.716535pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/4517/2021/amt-14-4517-2021-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="d1e1666">Calibration curves of detector voltage versus particle size for
the LAS (solid lines) and UHSAS (dashed lines) for both ammonium sulfate
(red circles) and polystyrene latex spheres (blue squares). The detector
responses of each gain stage are stitched together to provide a single,
continuous curve across the saturation points (black, crossed circles), and
the combined curve is reported in terms of the gain stage 3 voltage (left
axis). Mie theory curves of particle scattering cross-section at the LAS and
UHSAS laser wavelengths are shown as dotted lines for comparison with the
ordinate axes aligned roughly by eye (right axes). Since the particle
scattering intensity in the Rayleigh regime is expected to scale with
particle size to the sixth power, solid black linear fits to the lower end
of the calibration curve are included to guide the eye.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/4517/2021/amt-14-4517-2021-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1675">Having established the NIST size traceability of the SEMS mobility sizer, we
then use the SEMS to calibrate the LAS and UHSAS optical sizers with
classified ammonium sulfate aerosols (RI of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.52</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at 532 nm),
consistent with recent best practices (Brock et al., 2011,
2016; Sawamura et al.,<?pagebreak page4523?> 2017; Brock et al., 2019). The ammonium sulfate
calibration curves for both the UHSAS and LAS are shown as red circles in
Fig. 4, where the optical sizer detector voltages
of all gain stages are scaled to the G3 channel. Also shown as blue squares
in Fig. 4 are calibration curves using PSL
particles (RI of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.59</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at 589 nm), which are frequently used to
calibrate the optical sizers by the instrument manufacturers. Both
calibrations are largely indistinguishable from each other up to about 200 nm in size, above which the curves then diverge markedly. Mie theory
particle scattering cross-sections (shown as light, dotted lines on the
right, ordinate axes in Fig. 4) exhibit similar
functional forms to the empirically derived calibration curves, although the theoretical differences between the ammonium sulfate and PSL aerosols
are smaller than those actually observed. Thick, black lines in
Fig. 4 are sixth-order monomial fits to the
first few ammonium sulfate calibration points, since this is the expected
functional dependence for Rayleigh scattering of particles. The calibration
curves begin to meaningfully deviate from the sixth-order dependence
around 300 and 500 nm for the LAS and UHSAS, respectively. This
transition is consistent with the onset of the Mie scattering resonances
that complicate the RI dependences shown in Fig. 1a and b.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Airborne field measurements</title>
      <p id="d1e1714">In addition to the size-resolved laboratory measurements, we also examine
the consistency of the LAS and UHSAS size distributions with other particle
instruments deployed during two recent airborne field campaigns: the
NASA/NOAA Fire Influence on Regional to Global Environments and Air Quality
(FIREX-AQ) mission and the NASA Cloud, Aerosol, and Monsoon Processes
Philippines Experiment (CAMP<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Ex). FIREX-AQ used the NASA DC-8 aircraft
for targeted near- and far-field sampling of multiple wildfire smoke<?pagebreak page4524?> plumes
in the western United States during July–September 2019, while the NASA
P-3B aircraft encountered an aged smoke plume east of the Philippines during
1 of 19 CAMP<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Ex flights carried out in August–October 2019.
Biomass burning smoke plumes are ideal for validating the optical sizers'
response as the main aerosol number size distribution mode is typically
centered around 200–300 nm, which is firmly in the overlap region of
electrical mobility sizers, optical sizers, and particle time-of-flight mass
spectrometers. In addition, size distribution noise is reduced by having
good particle counting statistics, and it is expected that the transition
from “fresh” to “aged” smoke corresponds to a rapid transition in the
particle optical properties (e.g., fresh plume SSAs of around 0.80–0.90 that
increase toward unity for aged plumes) that allows us to examine potential
sizing biases associated with changes in the aerosol complex RI of
real-world atmospheric particles (Kleinman et al., 2020; Selimovic et al.,
2019; Eck et al., 2013).</p>
      <p id="d1e1735">Aerosol size distribution instrumentation deployed during FIREX-AQ includes a
TSI scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) and a pair of LASs operated by
the NASA Langley Aerosol Research Group (LARGE), a UHSAS operated by the
NOAA Chemical Sciences Laboratory Aerosol Optical Properties (AOP) Group,
and an Aerodyne high-resolution, time-of-flight aerosol mass spectrometer
(HR-ToF-AMS, hereafter abbreviated as AMS) operated by the Jimenez Research
Group at CU-Boulder (Canagaratna et al., 2007; DeCarlo et al., 2006; Nault
et al., 2018). The AOP UHSAS flow system is modified to maintain a constant
volumetric sample flow of 60 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" 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>, as described by
Kupc et al. (2018). For most of the FIREX-AQ flights,
the UHSAS and one of the LARGE LASs were operated behind thermal denuders
heated to 250 and 350 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, respectively, in order to
characterize volatility impacts on the aerosol size distribution. However,
the UHSAS thermal denuder was bypassed for the 3 August 2019 research flight
and a small portion of the 7 August 2019 research flight, both of which
sampled the Williams Flats Fire smoke plume (estimated smoke ages of 0.5 to
7 h for the fresh plumes as well as more aged plumes farther afield).
Consequently, we examine these flights to directly compare the UHSAS size
distributions with those observed by the un-denuded LARGE LAS. Meanwhile,
the non-denuded LAS was operated behind a monotube Nafion dryer (Permapure
MD-700 series) to ensure that the aerosol did not contain any residual
water. During FIREX-AQ, the UHSAS and LAS were frequently<?pagebreak page4525?> operated behind a
common bridge diluter system to reduce particle concentrations to reasonable
levels (less than about 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" 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>) where particle coincidence
effects on instrument counting or sizing would be minimal. The dilution
ratio varied across the flights from roughly 5–20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>. In addition, the LAS
instrument sample flow was sometimes reduced from 60 to 30 sccm min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to further limit the
instrument particle count rate for the most intense biomass burning plume
penetrations. No size-dependent counting efficiency corrections are applied
to either the UHSAS or LAS. Both the FIREX-AQ LAS and UHSAS are
size-calibrated with ammonium sulfate particles, and the data are archived
at 1 Hz.</p>
      <p id="d1e1816">SMPS data are archived at 60 s intervals, representing the 45 s
measurement voltage upscan and 15 s voltage downscan times. A challenge
when interpreting the airborne SMPS size distributions on the DC-8 flying at
airspeeds of 150–200 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" 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> is that the observed size distribution
reflects the concentrations of the smallest particles (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10–20 nm) captured near the beginning of the sampling interval and the
concentrations of the largest particles (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 200–250 nm)
captured towards the end of the sampling interval (45 s later in time
and roughly 8 km away in distance). Consequently, we use the 1 s LAS
measurements to assess the range of size distribution variability
encountered over the SMPS data interval and focus our comparisons on the
mode size, which is likely to be less variable than the localized particle
number concentrations within each fire plume.</p>
      <p id="d1e1845">Aerosol mass size distribution data are obtained from the AMS during
FIREX-AQ for a duration of 3–5 s each minute, using enhanced particle
time-of-flight mode, while the instrument operated in fast mass spectrometry
(FMS) mode for the remaining time (Kimmel et al., 2011).
This method of operation is used to maximize the amount of time spent in FMS
mode in order to capture sub-plume-scale heterogeneity; however, it limits
the number of overlapping size distributions available to compare with the
optical sizers to, typically, one per plume intercept. Particle size
information is obtained from the particle time-of-flight measurements as the
particles accelerate into the reduced vacuum environment of the AMS, and
particle mass concentration size distributions are reported in terms of the
particle vacuum aerodynamic diameter, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The measured mass
size distribution, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, is related to the number size distribution as
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M95" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the number
size distribution, and we assume that the particles are spherical (which is
reasonable for thickly coated biomass burning particles; see also
Slowik et al., 2004). The density, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, is calculated as a weighted average of the inorganic salts and organic species (Salcedo et al.,
2006), with the organic aerosol density being determined from the elemental
ratios (Guo et al., 2021; Kuwata et al., 2012). For the purposes of
comparing the AMS size distributions with those from the LAS, UHSAS, and
SMPS, we scale the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-axis <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">va</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> linearly by the density <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to compute the
spherical-equivalent, geometric diameter, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(DeCarlo et al., 2004). It should be noted that the AMS sampled
from a different inlet than the particle sizers (as described in
Brock et al., 2019 for a
different mission) and that the lower residence times in the AMS inlet
might have an impact on comparisons of highly volatile aerosol. Also, for
low-volatility species such as sulfate and more oxidized organic aerosol
(MO-OOA), the vaporization time on the AMS can be comparable to the particle
time of flight, resulting in a size shift towards larger diameters for these
species (Canagaratna et al., 2007).
While this is not a problem for fresh smoke, it can potentially impact the
larger size portion of the distributions in more aged smoke.</p>
      <p id="d1e2030">The CAMP<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Ex LAS size calibration was evaluated in the field using PSLs,
and the PSL-based size bins are converted to ammonium sulfate equivalent
sizes using a power-law adjustment. During CAMP<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Ex, number size
distributions of particles with diameter ranging from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 to
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 500 nm were measured using a fast-integrating mobility
spectrometer (FIMS) (Wang et al., 2018). The FIMS measures
particle sizes based on electrical mobility as in a traditional scanning
mobility particle sizer (SMPS). As FIMS detects particles of different sizes
simultaneously instead of sequentially as in traditional SMPS, it provides
the aerosol size distribution with a much higher time resolution at 1 Hz
(Kulkarni and Wang, 2006; Wang et al., 2017). The RH of the aerosol sample
was reduced to below <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 % using a Nafion dryer before the
sample was introduced into the FIMS. Therefore, the measured size
distributions are for dry aerosol particles.</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>Sizing of laboratory-generated challenge aerosols</title>
      <p id="d1e2088">Figure 5 compares the monodisperse aerosol peak
sizes measured by the LAS and UHSAS to the SEMS mobility size set points,
where panels (a)–(d) are ratios to emphasize sizing differences, and panels (e)–(f)
are 1 : 1 plots to illustrate the size trends. As discussed in Sect. 2.3,
both the UHSAS and LAS are calibrated using DMA-classified ammonium sulfate
aerosols, and the consistency of this calibration is apparent from the red
circles. Two different sets of ammonium sulfate calibrations were performed
during the study period, and it appears that the second UHSAS calibration
slightly undersizes the largest diameters. Better agreement across the
entire size range is seen for the other calibration. Here, we include both
curves to demonstrate both the uncertainties resulting from Mie resonances
and differences in the absolute calibration curves. Both sizers show
size deviations greater than 10 %–20 % for the fluoride salts (real RIs
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.4) and for PSLs (real RI of 1.59), and these deviations are
particularly apparent for particle diameters greater than 400–500 nm. The
agreement between the SEMS and UHSAS sizing is<?pagebreak page4526?> generally found to be better
than that for the SEMS and the LAS. This is consistent with the lower onset
of Mie resonances at 633 nm wavelength that are apparent in
Fig. 1 and that cause the flattening of the LAS
calibration curve for particle sizes larger than the G2 gain stage limit of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 300 nm (Fig. 4). In contrast, the
UHSAS calibration curve does not really start to flatten out until
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 500 nm, which is where the Mie resonances become only
slightly visible in Fig. 5a and b. It is also notable
that the lithium bromide and chloride salt aerosols are undersized by both
instruments – by only a few percent by the UHSAS and a more significant
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 % by the LAS. This response is contrary to Mie theory
expectations that predict that these particles should be oversized by both
optical sizers (Fig. 1a, b). Some uncertainty may
stem from potential asphericity of the particles, although we might expect
that cubic, crystalline salt particles would behave similarly to sodium
chloride, which is sized accurately by both the UHSAS and LAS. This result
is consistent with Cai et al. (2008), who also found sodium
chloride and doublet PSL particles to be correctly sized by the UHSAS
despite their particle shape factors being greater than unity.
Alternatively, the salts may form hydrates with residual water and a lower
refractive index than that reported by Li (1976) for the pure
component salt.</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="d1e2121">Comparison of optically sized particle diameter as measured by the
LAS <bold>(a, c, e)</bold> and the UHSAS <bold>(b, d, f)</bold> to the DMA-classified mobility diameter for the non-light-absorbing aerosol species listed in Table 1. Both optical sizers were calibrated to ammonium sulfate. Panels <bold>(a)</bold>–<bold>(d)</bold> show the ratio of the optical measurements to the mobility measurements, while the bottommost panels show the data plotted on a 1 : 1 line (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>20 % indicated). Panels <bold>(a)</bold>–<bold>(d)</bold> show the same information with panels <bold>(c)</bold> and <bold>(d)</bold> zoomed
in to show additional details. Particles were dried to less than 20 % RH
with a silica gel diffusion dryer. Raw data for this figure are available in the Supplement.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/4517/2021/amt-14-4517-2021-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e2164">Comparison of optically sized particle diameter as measured by the
LAS <bold>(a, c, e)</bold> and the UHSAS <bold>(b, d, f)</bold> to the DMA-classified mobility diameter for the light-absorbing aerosol species listed in Table 1. Both optical sizers were calibrated to ammonium sulfate. Panels <bold>(a)</bold>–<bold>(d)</bold> show the ratio of the optical measurements to the mobility measurements, while the bottommost panels show the data plotted on a 1 : 1 line (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>20 % indicated). Panels <bold>(a)</bold>–<bold>(d)</bold> show the same information with panels <bold>(c)</bold> and <bold>(d)</bold> zoomed in to show additional details. Particles were dried to less than 20 % RH with a silica gel diffusion dryer. Raw data for this figure are available in the Supplement.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/4517/2021/amt-14-4517-2021-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2206">The sizing performance of the LAS and UHSAS against the SEMS size set points
worsens significantly for the laboratory-generated absorbing aerosol
species, as shown in Fig. 6. Here, the weakly
absorbing fulvic and humic acid species are slightly oversized below about
400 nm, with more significant oversizing observed at the larger particle
diameters. It is interesting to note that these compounds closely follow the
PSL sizing points, which makes sense given their similar real RIs.
Meanwhile, the strongly absorbing fullerene soot and nigrosine dye particles
are significantly undersized by the UHSAS at almost all particle sizes and
by the LAS above about 400 nm in diameter. The LAS sizing response to the
nigrosine dye particles roughly follows the behavior expected from
Fig. 1e, where the LAS initially oversizes them by
almost 20 % before significantly undersizing them.</p>
      <p id="d1e2209">The discontinuity in the UHSAS fullerene and nigrosine curves in
Fig. 6d and f is caused by a stitching error between
the G1 and G2 detectors that results in a double peak size distribution, and
we have intentionally included these data to highlight this effect.
Zimmerman et al. (2015) also made measurements of laboratory-generated
fullerene soot and nigrosine dye particles of electrical mobility diameters
from 100–600 nm and observed a smoothly varying response curve without a
discontinuity for both instruments. Although not as prominent as for the
UHSAS, the slight inflection points in the LAS fullerene soot data near 200 and 480 nm in Fig. 6c and e reflect the same
stitching issue. While such a stitching error is indiscernible or only
noticeable as a slight dip for a polydisperse size distribution (see, e.g.,
the lowest right panel of Fig. 10), it may become
much more noticeable (and confounding) for monodisperse aerosol, as shown by
this example. This illustrates a challenge in the interpretation of combined
mobility and UHSAS or LAS optical sizing measurements since the stitching
error is only identifiable from measuring over the full particle size range.
If only a single, or a few, discrete DMA sizes are selected, then the double
peak might be misinterpreted as an externally mixed aerosol.</p>
      <p id="d1e2212">It is worth paying particular attention to the relationship between PSL
particles and DMA-classified ammonium sulfate particles since these
compounds are most widely used for calibrating the UHSAS and LAS. Typically,
manufacturer-calibrated instruments are returned from service with a
PSL-based calibration, and it is often convenient to spot check the
instrument size calibration in the field using PSLs since only a nebulizer
is required. However, prior work has shown that most atmospheric submicron
aerosols have a RI closer to ammonium sulfate (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.52</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) than to PSLs
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.59</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Shingler et al., 2016), so recent aerosol
measurement campaigns have started converting the PSL-calibrated optical
size bins post-mission or preferably directly calibrating the internal
instrument calibration curve using DMA-classified ammonium sulfate
particles. Examples of these relationships are shown in
Fig. 7, including LAS and UHSAS data taken in 2020
after the NASA FIREX-AQ campaign as well as data for the UHSAS obtained
during the 2012 NASA DC3 project (which were obtained for DMA-classified
particles using a similar methodology to that described above). First, it is
notable that the ammonium sulfate and PSL sizing below about 200 nm
diameter are within a few percent of each other, and the difference increases
to a maximum around 500–800 nm diameters. Second, attempts to post-correct
the sizing data may choose to use a power-law fit, which is monotonic and
well posed at large particle sizes but which also fails to capture the Mie
resonances at larger particle sizes. Attempts to fit the data to a
high-order polynomial are able to capture the Mie resonances but become
unrealistic near 1000 nm, which is particularly problematic for the LAS. In
addition, we note that both curves for the UHSAS sizing are roughly
consistent with each other, although there appears to be a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5 % offset at the lower size range that is likely due to differences in
the PSL-based internal instrument calibration during these missions. This is
important to keep in mind when applying a parameterized correction between
PSL and ammonium sulfate size bin calibrations as small changes in the
instrument absolute calibration curve would impact any post-mission
instrument size correction. Finally, it may be worthwhile to apply a
calibration curve to the LAS that accounts for expected differences in
atmospheric aerosol RIs for submicron and supermicron aerosols. The good
agreement between the optical sizing response for PSLs and the
weakly absorbing fulvic and humic acids shown in
Fig. 6e and f hints that the PSL size calibration
standard is most appropriate for the supermicron LAS size range to
accurately size what are thought to be weakly absorbing, coarse-mode dust
aerosols (Froyd et<?pagebreak page4527?> al., 2019). Future
work should examine the LAS response to dry-generated dust aerosols and sea
salt particles to provide guidance on the appropriate calibration aerosols
to use in the instrument supermicron size range.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e2252">Comparison of LAS and UHSAS optical diameter (calibrated using
ammonium sulfate) to NIST-traceable polystyrene latex sphere (PSL) particle
sizes during the 2020 laboratory experiments (red and blue points). The data
are fit to a simple power-law function as well as a sixth-order
polynomial function, both with the intercept forced through the origin. Also
shown for comparison as open circles are DMA-classified ammonium sulfate
aerosol sizes plotted versus the UHSAS sizes during the 2012 DC3 mission
(calibrated using PSLs). Raw data for this figure are available in the Supplement.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=213.395669pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/4517/2021/amt-14-4517-2021-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Sizing of fresh and aged wildfire smoke aerosols</title>
      <p id="d1e2269">The FIREX-AQ field campaign provides a unique opportunity to evaluate the
LAS and UHSAS sizing performance for accumulation-mode biomass burning
aerosols as they undergo rapid chemical transformation in the hours after
emission. Figure 8 shows a typical FIREX-AQ sampling
strategy for the 3 August 2019 Williams Flats Fire in Washington, USA
(<uri>https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/6493/</uri>, last access: 14 June 2021), where the NASA DC-8 aircraft
horizontally profiled the smoke plume cross-section at constant altitude
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2700 m) and at successive downwind distances from the
fire. The average amount of time that it took for the aircraft to travel
between adjacent legs was 20 %–25 % that of the time it took the smoke to
travel the same distance (Wiggins et al.,
2020). Wind speeds measured by the DC-8 were approximately 5 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" 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> from
the west-southwest during the sampling period. Consequently, the sampling
was not Lagrangian, and differences in smoke particle amount and properties
between<?pagebreak page4528?> the legs reflect the combination of changing fire emissions as well
as longer downwind processing of the plume. The thick outlined portion of
the flight track in Fig. 8 corresponds to the
time series data shown in Fig. 9, where the smoke
age in the top panel is colored using the same scale as
Fig. 8. Local time is Pacific daylight time
(UTC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7). It is notable that the repeated transects from 23:10 to 23:25 have
slightly different estimated smoke ages despite being at the same
geographical position, which is indicative of the reproducibility of this
rough smoke age estimate based on aircraft-measured wind speed. The lower
panels of Fig. 9 show the particle size
distributions measured by the LAS, UHSAS, and SMPS. The UHSAS thermal
denuder was turned on from roughly 23:00 to just after 23:15, so this
portion of the time series is not shown. Most of the other missing data
periods for the UHSAS are when the system sampled filtered air to complete a
zeroing procedure. The smoke plume transects are clearly discernible from
the background aerosol size distributions. All instruments show an increase
in the aerosol mode size from less than 200 nm in the closest transects to
200–300 nm in the farthest downwind transects.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e2303">NASA DC-8 flight track for the 3 August 2019 Williams Flats fire
in the state of Washington, USA (<uri>https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/6493/</uri>, last access: 14 June 2021), during FIREX-AQ. The thick, outlined portion of the flight track corresponds to the time series shown in Fig. 9, while the colored portion of the transects denotes the smoke plume extent, which is colored by the approximate smoke age after emission. Smoke age is estimated assuming
horizontal, straight-line advection between the fire and the DC-8 position
at the wind speed and direction measured on the aircraft.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/4517/2021/amt-14-4517-2021-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e2317">Time series of the measured aerosol size distributions from the
DC-8 for the 3 August 2019 Williams Flats Fire in the state of Washington,
USA, during FIREX-AQ. The top panel shows the approximate smoke age and
downwind distance, corresponding to each plume transect as shown in
Fig. 8. The three lowest panels are the measured
size distribution expressed as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" 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> STP). The horizontal dashed line denotes the upper size limit of the SMPS, which is plotted on a different size scale from the LAS and UHSAS. Reported sizes are for dry particles (RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 40 %). Local time is Pacific daylight time (UTC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/4517/2021/amt-14-4517-2021-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e2376">Comparison of the size distributions measured by the LAS, UHSAS,
and SMPS at multiple downwind distances from the Williams Flats Fire in the
state of Washington, USA, during the 3 August 2019 FIREX-AQ flight. In some
of the early plumes, the 60 s SMPS distribution was heavily skewed
toward a short portion of the plume, in which case an additional LAS trace
corresponding to this peak is included for the comparison. Smoke ages and
downwind distances from the fire are noted for each set of size
distributions and correspond to those given in Figs. 8 and 9. As explained
in the text, the mass to number conversion for the AMS data is very
sensitive to small shifts at small sizes; hence the AMS number data below
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 120 nm are fairly uncertain. Reported sizes are for dry
particles (RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 40 %).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/4517/2021/amt-14-4517-2021-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2399">Particle number size distributions for eight smoke plume transects and the
upwind sampling leg are shown in Fig. 10.
Comparison times are selected to line up with the AMS size<?pagebreak page4529?> distributions,
which were typically taken for a 3–4 s period every minute on the
minute. Corresponding LAS size distributions for the freshest plumes show
reasonable agreement with the AMS number size distributions, although the
reduced sampling statistics for the longer aged plumes introduce some noise
in the smaller size bins when converting from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
size distributions also agree well with those from the UHSAS and the SMPS in
terms of the mode size. For the longer aged plumes, the LAS shows a slightly
larger and narrower distribution than the UHSAS and SMPS of about 10 %,
although the upper size limit of the SMPS makes it hard to say that the
mode is actually being captured. An additional challenge in this comparison
is that the SMPS size distributions occur over a 60 s scan. This is not
a problem for sampling outside of the plume (e.g., the upwind flight leg
panel in Fig. 10), but changes in the smoke plume
intensity over a minute may result in differences in the aerosol number
concentrations. This is especially apparent for the plume transects at 0.5 and at 2.4 h in Fig. 10, where the SMPS
distributions are higher than both the LAS and the AMS. Investigating the 1 Hz LAS size distributions in a short time interval surrounding the
measurement point indicates significant concentration variability, and
additional data are included for the LAS for these transects that show
better agreement with the SMPS concentration magnitude and are within only
4–8 s of the other size distributions.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F11" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{11}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d1e2446">Comparison of the size distributions measured by the AMS, LAS,
UHSAS, and SMPS at three downwind distances from the Williams Flats Fire in
the state of Washington, USA, during the 7 August 2019 FIREX-AQ flight,
including smoke sampled much farther afield. Mass distributions are computed
for the LAS, UHSAS, and SMPS, assuming spherical particles and using the
aerosol density estimated from the mass spectrometer, while the calculation
is applied in reverse to compute AMS number distributions. This density is
also used to convert the AMS vacuum aerodynamic diameters to
spherical-equivalent diameters. Reported sizes are for dry particles (RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 40 %).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=395.493307pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/4517/2021/amt-14-4517-2021-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2462">Airborne measurements of the Williams Flats Fire smoke on 7 August 2020
included a combination of sampling transects in the fresh plume as well as
aged smoke at a considerable distance downwind of the fire.
Figure 11 presents aerosol number and mass size
distributions for three sampling transects covering the dynamic range of
observed particle size distributions. As the smoke plume is advected
downwind, the LAS number mode size increases from 180 nm to 250 nm at smoke
ages of 0.9 and 2.75 h, respectively. The LAS number mode size of
the aged smoke is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 250 nm, which underscores the rapid
evolution of the smoke aerosols in the early hours after emission. LAS mass
mode sizes are similar across all three size distributions at around 350 nm.
The sizing of the SMPS, LAS, UHSAS, and AMS shown in
Fig. 11 is in reasonable agreement with each
other across all<?pagebreak page4530?> plume ages, and it does not appear from either
Fig. 10 or Fig. 11 that
any one instrument is significantly or systematically biased relative to the
others.</p>
      <p id="d1e2472">It is also worth discussing two important features that become apparent in
the Fig. 10 size distributions, which are the
discontinuities in the UHSAS size distributions at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 130 nm
and at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 255 nm. These sizes correspond to the G3–G2 and G2–G1
transitions of the calibration curves (similar to those for the NASA UHSAS
shown in Fig. 4). Anomalous peaks due to these
stitching errors are present for all UHSAS curves in
Fig. 10, although the increased counting
statistics noise in the size distribution for the upwind flight leg makes it
difficult to see the individual peaks. Gain stage stitching errors are not
obvious for the LAS size distributions; however, some distributions exhibit
a sharp drop-off in concentration near 460–480 nm that is present in both
number and, more apparent, in the mass size distributions. This sharp
transition is noticeable in both the Fig. 9 LAS time series and the
mass size distributions shown in Fig. 11. The
transition is not from a stitching error as it occurs within the LAS G1 gain
stage that extends from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 330 to over 1000 nm. Rather, it
occurs at the kink in the LAS calibration curve caused by the onset of Mie
resonances (Fig. 4), where the flattening of the
calibration curve makes the LAS size response particularly susceptible to
errors in the instrument absolute calibration. Such an error in the
instrument absolute calibration would be difficult to post-correct merely by
shifting the size bins using a functional fit (e.g., power law, polynomial)
similar to those in Fig. 7. This motivates
adjusting the instrument calibration parameters in the field based on
mobility-classified particle data for an RI consistent with
atmospherically relevant particles (i.e., ammonium sulfate). It is worth
reminding the reader of the caution in the TSI LAS manual that “the
relative stitching will never be perfect, and the ability to zoom in on these
transition regions can overemphasize the stitching errors” (TSI, 2015).
This is particularly true for the monodisperse aerosol measurements in
Figs. 5 and 6, where the UHSAS G2-G1 stitching errors for nigrosine dye
and fullerene soot curves might incorrectly be interpreted as a bimodal size
distribution or change in aerosol refractive index. For the polydisperse
size distributions exemplified by Figs. 10 and 11, the stitching errors
are imperceptible at best or exert a negligible effect on the overall size
distribution mode at worst. In addition to these discontinuities, the upwind
leg panel of Fig. 10 highlights another source of uncertainty, where the
UHSAS appears to significantly undercount the particle concentrations in the
smallest three size bins relative to the SMPS. While this effect could be
addressed by applying a size-dependent counting efficiency correction to the
optical sizer data, we note that the impacted size bins are usually much
smaller than the smoke size mode. Consequently, we have chosen to not
correct the data in an effort to attempt to account for this effect.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F12" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{12}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 12</label><caption><p id="d1e2499">Comparison of the LAS and FIMS aerosol accumulation-mode size
distributions for aged biomass burning plumes encountered during
CAMP<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Ex research flight on 16–17 September 2019 east of the
Philippines. Panel <bold>(a)</bold> shows the flight track in gray, with bolded regions indicating the plume encounters. Panels <bold>(b)</bold> and <bold>(d)</bold> show the size distribution time series for each instrument with the white trace denoting the count mean diameter (CMD) of the size distribution. Also shown is the ratio of the CMDs for the LAS and FIMS. Panels <bold>(c)</bold> and <bold>(e)</bold> are the geometric mean (1 geometric standard deviation) of the aerosol size distributions for level flight legs within the most intense portion of the plume intercept (denoted by the vertical dashed lines in panels <bold>b</bold> and <bold>d</bold>). Reported sizes are for dry
particles (RH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 %).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=449.553543pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/4517/2021/amt-14-4517-2021-f12.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2546">Aged smoke plumes encountered in southeast Asia during the CAMP<inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Ex
field campaign provide another data set that is ideal for evaluating the LAS
performance against the state-of-the-art FIMS electrical mobility sizer.
Unlike the SMPS deployed for FIREX-AQ, the FIMS makes measurements at the
same 1 Hz time resolution as the LAS, while also covering the particle
diameter range up to 600 nm. Thus, it should be able to capture the entirety
of the biomass burning number size distribution, which is shown for select
16 September 2019 flight legs in Fig. 12. Two
flight segments are shown in Fig. 12a that
correspond to the time series panels (b) and (d). Then a subset of each
time series is used to compute the geometric mean (1 geometric standard
deviation) size distributions for the most intense portions of the plume,
which are shown in panels (c) and (e). While both flight segments are impacted
by biomass burning emissions, the size distributions shown in panels (b) and (c)
are also impacted by pollution outflow including possible volcanic
emissions. These additional aerosol sources contributed to the prominent
Aitken mode that is particularly evident in panel (c). The white traces in
Fig. 12b and d are the count mean diameter (CMD) for
the portion of LAS and FIMS size distributions above 100 nm, and the ratio
of these diameters is shown as the red trace in panels (b) and (d). The LAS CMD
tends to be less noisy than that computed for the FIMS, and both diameters
vary between 200–260 nm for the biomass burning<?pagebreak page4531?> plumes and are near 150 nm
for the background air. While the size distributions measured by the LAS and
FIMS both capture the accumulation-mode size distributions well, the LAS CMD
appears to be systematically biased high relative to the FIMS CMD by about
10 %. It is not obvious, however, that this difference is outside of the
expected instrument size uncertainty or due to a change in the aerosol RI
since the offset is consistent for both the biomass burning and background
aerosols.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e2561">Expected percent LAS sizing error associated with an
atmospherically relevant range of refractive indices (RIs) computed for each
size by linearly interpolating between the laboratory response curves of
NaF, (NH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, NaCl, and SRFA, as shown in Figs. 5 and 6.</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="justify" colwidth="2.2cm"/>
     <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>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col3" nameend="col6" align="center">Expected LAS sizing error </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Aerosol type</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">RI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">100 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">250 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">500 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">800 nm</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col6">SEAC4RS (Aldaif et al., 2018) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">All</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.47–1.57</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 % to 0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 7 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>9 % to 9 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Agricultural biomass burning</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.51–1.54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % to 0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 % to 4 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Wildfire biomass burning</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.50–1.57</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % to 0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 7 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 9 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Background</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.47–1.56</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 % to 6 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Biogenic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.49–1.56</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 6 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Free troposphere</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.46–1.54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>9 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>12 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Marine</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.47–1.56</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 6 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>9 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Urban</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.48–1.58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % to 9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 12 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mix</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.49–1.55</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % to 5 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 7 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col6">SEAC4RS (Espinosa et al., 2019) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Biogenic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.46–1.56 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.002–0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>9 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>9 % to 6 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>11 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Biomass burning</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.50–1.60 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.004–0.01</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 12 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 15 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Urban</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.47–1.57 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.003–0.007</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 % to 0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 % to 7 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 9 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col6">FIREX-AQ (this study) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3 August – upwind leg</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.47–1.56 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 % to 6 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3, 7 August – all smoke ages</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 6 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % to 6 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 19 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 25 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e2591"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> RI range for SEAC4RS computed from literature values as the reported median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> times the interquartile range for Aldaif et al. (2018) and as the mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> times the standard deviation for Espinosa et
al. (2019). For FIREX-AQ, the RI is assumed to be dominated by the organic
aerosol component, with a conservatively large range estimate for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is computed following Saleh et al. (2014).</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Table 3</label><caption><p id="d1e3685">Expected percent UHSAS sizing error associated with an
atmospherically relevant range of refractive indices (RIs) computed for each
size by linearly interpolating between the laboratory response curves of
NaF, (NH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, NaCl, and SRFA, as shown in Figs. 5 and 6.</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="justify" colwidth="2.2cm"/>
     <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>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col3" nameend="col6" align="center">Expected UHSAS sizing error (%) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Aerosol type</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">RI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">100 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">250 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">500 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">800 nm</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col6">SEAC4RS (Aldaif et al., 2018) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">All</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.47–1.57</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % to 4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 % to 4 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Agricultural biomass burning</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.51–1.54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % to 0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Wildfire biomass burning</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.50–1.57</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 4 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Background</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.47–1.56</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>9 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Biogenic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.49–1.56</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Free troposphere</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.46–1.54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>11 % to 0 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Marine</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.47–1.56</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Urban</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.48–1.58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mix</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.49–1.55</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col6">SEAC4RS (Espinosa et al., 2019) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Biogenic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.46–1.56 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.002–0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Biomass burning</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.50–1.60 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M320" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.004–0.01</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M321" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % to 5 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 7 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Urban</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.47–1.57 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M327" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M328" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.003–0.007</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M329" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M331" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % to 4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M332" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>9 % to 4 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col6">FIREX-AQ (this study) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3 August – upwind leg</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.47–1.56 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M336" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M337" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M338" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M339" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M340" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>9 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3, 7 August – all smoke ages</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M342" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M343" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.008</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M345" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 7 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M346" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M347" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 12 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 14 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e3715"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> RI range for SEAC4RS computed from literature values as the reported median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> times the interquartile range for Aldaif et al. (2018) and as the mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> times the standard deviation for Espinosa et al. (2019). For FIREX-AQ, the RI is assumed to be dominated by the organic aerosol component, with a conservatively large range estimate for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is computed following Saleh et al. (2014).</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Sizing errors from aerosol composition and RI changes</title>
      <p id="d1e4758">The results so far show that laboratory compounds with a wide range of RIs
produce widely varying optical sizing responses (particularly for the
largest particle sizes) but that field campaign size distribution
comparisons do not indicate obvious compositionally dependent systematic
optical sizing biases relative to electrical mobility and particle time of
flight techniques. The likely explanation is that real-world aerosols, even
those in relatively fresh wildfire smoke plumes, have size distribution
modes towards the lower end of the optical sizers' range and exist as
internally mixed aerosols with relatively narrow RI ranges. This explanation
is supported by summary statistics reported for the NASA SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M349" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS
airborne campaign, which examined a diverse range of aerosol types including
agricultural and wildfire biomass burning, marine, urban, biogenic, free
troposphere, and background conditions (Aldhaif et al., 2018; Shingler et
al., 2016; Espinosa et al., 2019). Here, we use the type-averaged size
distributions and RI ranges reported by these studies, along with the
laboratory sizing curves for select species (Figs. 5 and 6), to quantify
the expected sizing errors for each instrument due to
compositionally dependent RI changes. Similar analyses are performed for the
FIREX-AQ size distributions (Figs. 10 and 11) using a conservatively wide
range for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M350" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–1.65, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M351" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is assumed to be dominated by the organic
aerosol component and is estimated following Saleh et al. (2014). Surprisingly, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M352" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values for successive downwind smoke plume
transects showed little variability (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03 and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M354" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.008 at 633 and 1054 nm wavelengths, respectively), while
the size distribution mode shifted markedly toward larger diameters.
Laboratory size ratios for sodium fluoride, ammonium sulfate, sodium
chloride, and Suwannee River fulvic acid (SRFA) are linearly regressed
against their reported real RIs for each size bin, and the results are shown
in Tables 2 and 3 for the LAS and UHSAS, respectively. This approach only
accounts for particle refractive index changes and neglects undersizing due
to potential volatilization of strongly absorbing aerosols (e.g., nigrosine
dye and fullerene soot), whose imaginary RIs are much larger than those
expected for atmospherically relevant aerosols. Sizing errors for particle
diameters below 500 nm are generally better than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 %, with some
higher values expected for the upper end of the plausible biomass burning RI
range. The sizing errors<?pagebreak page4535?> generally increase with increasing particle size,
which is consistent with the behavior shown in Figs. 5 and 6. In
addition, the sizing error ranges for the smallest particles tend to be
skewed toward undersizing, while both under- and oversizing errors occur
for the largest particles.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Table 4</label><caption><p id="d1e4821">Expected percent LAS sizing error associated with an
atmospherically relevant range of refractive indices (RIs) computed for characteristic size distributions by linearly interpolating between
the laboratory response curves of NaF, (NH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M356" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M357" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M358" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, NaCl, and SRFA, as shown in Figs. 5 and 6. Size distributions for SEAC4RS are from
Shingler et al. (2016), while FIREX-AQ size distributions
are those shown for the LAS in Figs. 10 and 11.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.965}[.965]?><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="2.2cm"/>
     <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>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col3" nameend="col6" align="center">Expected LAS sizing error (%) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Aerosol type</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">RI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M364" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Count mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Volume mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Total surface</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Total volume</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">diameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">diameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">area</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col6">SEAC4RS (Aldaif et al., 2018) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Agricultural biomass burning</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M365" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M366" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.51–1.54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M367" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M368" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M369" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M370" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M371" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M372" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M373" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>12 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M374" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Wildfire biomass burning</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M375" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M376" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.50–1.57</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M377" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M378" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M379" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M380" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>15 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Background</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M381" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M382" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.47–1.56</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M383" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M384" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M385" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>14 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M386" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M387" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>21 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M388" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Biogenic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M389" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M390" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.49–1.56</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M391" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M392" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M393" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % to 0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M394" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>11 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M395" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M396" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>17 % to 0 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Free troposphere</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M397" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M398" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.46–1.54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M399" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M400" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M401" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M402" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M403" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>15 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M404" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M405" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>23 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M406" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Marine</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M407" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M408" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.47–1.56</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M409" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M410" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M411" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M412" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M413" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>13 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M414" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M415" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>21 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M416" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Urban</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M417" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M418" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.48–1.58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M419" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M420" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M421" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>13 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M422" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>19 % to 5 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col6">SEAC4RS (Espinosa et al., 2019) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Biogenic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M423" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M424" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.46–1.56 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M425" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M426" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.002–0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M427" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M428" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M429" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 % to 0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M430" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>15 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M431" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M432" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>23 % to 0 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Biomass burning</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M433" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M434" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.50–1.60 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M435" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M436" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.004–0.01</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M437" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M438" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M439" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 6 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M440" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>15 % to 11 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Urban</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M441" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M442" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.47–1.57 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M443" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M444" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.003–0.007</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M445" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M446" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M447" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>14 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M448" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>21 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col6">FIREX-AQ (this study) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3 August – upwind leg</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M449" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M450" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.47–1.56 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M451" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M452" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M453" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M454" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M455" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>14 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M456" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>21 % to 4 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3 August – 0.5 h smoke age</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M457" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M458" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M459" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M460" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M461" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 6 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M462" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M463" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 14 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M464" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>15 % to 26 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3 August – 1.2 h smoke age</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M465" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M466" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M467" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M468" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M469" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 6 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M470" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M471" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 15 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M472" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>16 % to 26 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3 August – 2.4 h smoke age</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M473" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M474" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M475" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M476" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M477" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 7 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M478" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M479" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 17 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M480" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>14 % to 31 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3 August – 3.1 h smoke age</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M481" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M482" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M483" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M484" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M485" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 7 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M486" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M487" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 17 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M488" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>14 % to 31 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3 August – 4.3 h smoke age</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M489" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M490" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M491" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M492" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M493" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M494" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 10 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M495" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 18 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M496" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>14 % to 33 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3 August – 4.9 h smoke age</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M497" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M498" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M499" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M500" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M501" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M502" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 10 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M503" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 19 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M504" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>15 % to 32 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3 August – 6.1 h smoke age</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M505" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M506" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M507" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M508" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M509" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M510" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 10 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M511" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 18 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M512" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>15 % to 31 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3 August – 7.1 h smoke age</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M513" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M514" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M515" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M516" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M517" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M518" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 10 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M519" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 19 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M520" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>14 % to 33 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">7 August – 0.9 h smoke age</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M521" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M522" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M523" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M524" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M525" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 7 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M526" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % to 9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M527" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 16 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M528" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>16 % to 29 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">7 August – 2.75 h smoke age</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M529" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M530" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M531" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M532" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M533" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M534" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 10 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M535" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 18 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M536" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>14 % to 33 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">7 August – aged smoke</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M537" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M538" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M539" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M540" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M541" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 7 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M542" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M543" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>11 % to 17 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M544" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>18 % to 26 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e4851"><?xmltex \hack{\hspace{0.3cm}}?><inline-formula><mml:math id="M359" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> RI range for SEAC4RS computed from literature values as the reported median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> times the interquartile range for Aldaif et al. (2018) and as the mean<?xmltex \hack{\\}?><?xmltex \hack{\hspace{0.3cm}}?><inline-formula><mml:math id="M361" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> times the standard deviation for Espinosa et al. (2019). For FIREX-AQ, the RI is assumed to be dominated by the organic aerosol component, with a<?xmltex \hack{\\}?><?xmltex \hack{\hspace{0.3cm}}?> conservatively  large range estimate for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M362" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M363" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is computed following Saleh et al. (2014).</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Table 5</label><caption><p id="d1e6675">Expected percent UHSAS sizing error associated with an
atmospherically relevant range of refractive indices (RIs) computed for characteristic size distributions by linearly interpolating between
the laboratory response curves of NaF, (NH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M545" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M546" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M547" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, NaCl, and SRFA, as shown in Figs. 5 and 6. Size distributions for SEAC4RS are from
Shingler et al. (2016), while FIREX-AQ size distributions
are those shown for the LAS in Figs. 10 and 11.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.965}[.965]?><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="2.2cm"/>
     <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>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col3" nameend="col6" align="center">Expected UHSAS sizing error (%) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Aerosol type</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">RI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M553" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Count mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Volume mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Total surface</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Total volume</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">diameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">diameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">area</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col6">SEAC4RS (Aldaif et al., 2018) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Agricultural biomass burning</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M554" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M555" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.51–1.54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M556" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M557" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M558" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M559" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Wildfire biomass burning</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M560" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M561" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.50–1.57</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M562" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M563" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M564" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 5 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M565" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Background</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M566" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M567" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.47–1.56</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M568" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M569" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M570" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>9 % to 4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M571" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>13 % to 6 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Biogenic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M572" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M573" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.49–1.56</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M574" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M575" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M576" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % to 4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M577" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>9 % to 6 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Free troposphere</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M578" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M579" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.46–1.54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M580" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M581" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M582" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M583" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>15 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Marine</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M584" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M585" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.47–1.56</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M586" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M587" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M588" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 % to 4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M589" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>12 % to 6 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Urban</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M590" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M591" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.48–1.58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M592" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M593" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M594" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 7 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M595" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>11 % to 11 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col6">SEAC4RS (Espinosa et al., 2019) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Biogenic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M596" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M597" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.46–1.56 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M598" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M599" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.002–0.006</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M600" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M601" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M602" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M603" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>15 % to 6 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Biomass burning</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M604" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M605" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.50–1.60 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M606" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M607" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.004–0.01</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M608" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % to 5 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M609" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % to 5 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M610" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 10 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M611" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 15 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Urban</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M612" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M613" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.47–1.57 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M614" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M615" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.003–0.007</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M616" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M617" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M618" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>9 % to 5 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M619" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>13 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col6">FIREX-AQ (this study) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3 August – upwind leg</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M620" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M621" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.47–1.56 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M622" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M623" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M624" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M625" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 2 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M626" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>9 % to 4 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M627" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>14 % to 7 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3 August – 0.5 h smoke age</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M628" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M629" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M630" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M631" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.008</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M632" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M633" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % to 9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M634" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 18 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M635" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 29 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3 August – 1.2 h smoke age</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M636" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M637" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M638" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M639" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.008</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M640" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M641" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M642" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 17 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M643" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 25 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3 August – 2.4 h smoke age</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M644" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M645" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M646" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M647" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.008</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M648" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M649" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M650" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 18 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M651" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 29 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3 August – 3.1 h smoke age</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M652" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M653" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M654" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M655" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.008</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M656" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % to 9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M657" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M658" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 18 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M659" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 29 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3 August – 4.3 h smoke age</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M660" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M661" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M662" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M663" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.008</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M664" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % to 9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M665" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % to 9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M666" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 19 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M667" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 30 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3 August – 4.9 h smoke age</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M668" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M669" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M670" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M671" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.008</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M672" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M673" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M674" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 18 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M675" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 28 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3 August – 6.1 h smoke age</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M676" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M677" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M678" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M679" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.008</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M680" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M681" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M682" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 18 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M683" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % to 27 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3 August – 7.1 h smoke age</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M684" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M685" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M686" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M687" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.008</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M688" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M689" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M690" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 18 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M691" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>9 % to 28 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">7 August – 0.9 h smoke age</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M692" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M693" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M694" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M695" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.008</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M696" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M697" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 7 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M698" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % to 17 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M699" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>12 % to 24 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">7 August – 2.75 h smoke age</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M700" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M701" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M702" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M703" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.008</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M704" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2 % to 9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M705" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M706" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % to 18 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M707" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 % to 30 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">7 August – aged smoke</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M708" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M709" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–1.65 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M710" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M711" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.008</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M712" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 % to 8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M713" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 % to 7 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M714" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 % to 17 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M715" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>12 % to 24 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e6705"><?xmltex \hack{\hspace{0.3cm}}?><inline-formula><mml:math id="M548" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> RI range for SEAC4RS computed from literature values as the reported median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M549" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> times the interquartile range for Aldaif et al. (2018) and as the<?xmltex \hack{\\}?><?xmltex \hack{\hspace{0.3cm}}?> mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M550" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> times the standard deviation for Espinosa et al. (2019). For FIREX-AQ, the RI is assumed to be dominated by the organic aerosol<?xmltex \hack{\\}?><?xmltex \hack{\hspace{0.3cm}}?> component, with a conservatively large range estimate for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M551" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M552" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is computed following Saleh et al. (2014).</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <?pagebreak page4538?><p id="d1e8402">Incorporating the size distribution information from SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M716" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS and
FIREX-AQ helps to further focus our error analysis on the instrument size
range that is most relevant for atmospheric aerosols. We use the laboratory
size ratio regressions for each size distribution bin to shift the size
distributions larger or smaller to capture the range of realistic RIs. We
then compute summary statistics for each distribution including the CMD,
volume mean diameter (VMD), total integrated particle surface area, and
total integrated particle volume. Tables 4 and 5 report the differences in
these summary statistics associated with RI-dependent LAS and UHSAS sizing
errors, respectively. Both number and volume mean diameters are within
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M717" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % for all air mass types, with slightly more undersizing
uncertainty than oversizing uncertainty. This behavior is consistent with
mode sizes reported by Shingler et al. (2016) for
SEAC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M718" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>RS and those shown in Figs. 10 and 11 for FIREX-AQ, which tend
to be toward the lower end of the LAS and UHSAS size ranges (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M719" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 300 nm diameter), where the instrument sizing biases are minimized. It is
important to also note that the range of real RIs used for the FIREX-AQ
sizing error estimates in Tables 2–5 are likely to be overly broad,
particularly at the high end of the range. Consequently, the large range of
error estimates should be interpreted as conservatively large upper and
lower limits. In summary, the synthesis of the laboratory and atmospheric
data shows that the LAS and UHSAS instrument performance may not be as bad as
suggested merely by the laboratory results alone. This is because
real-world, atmospheric aerosols tend toward Aitken- and accumulation-mode
size distributions that become increasingly internally mixed over time.
These size modes are within the optimal sizing range, where both the LAS and
UHSAS are less sensitive to RI changes. In addition, the processing of
aerosols that transitions their mixing state to a more homogenous,
internally mixed population also serves to narrow the range of RIs toward
values characteristic of less-absorbing aerosols composed of organics,
sulfate, and nitrate salts that roughly bound the range of real RIs
reported by Aldhaif et al. (2018) and in Tables 2–5.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>4</label><title>Summary and conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e8446">Modern optical particle sizers like the DMT UHSAS and TSI LAS are invaluable
tools for studying the atmospheric aerosol size distribution with high time
and size resolution, which makes them ideal for airborne measurements. Both
instruments are optimized for capturing the aerosol accumulation mode
through the use of focused lasers and wide-angle collection and focusing
optics but differ in terms of the laser power and wavelength. Consequently,
we expect from Mie theory that the instruments should size aerosols of
varying refractive index (RI) differently. Theoretical calculations suggest
that non-absorbing particles with real RIs less than that of the calibrant
(i.e., ammonium sulfate particles) would be undersized, while those with
real RIs greater than that of the calibrant would be oversized. Empirical
results from laboratory-generated aerosols show limited dynamic range in
RI-dependent sizing of both instruments over the real RI range of 1.52–1.78
for particles smaller than 300–400 nm, but significant undersizing of
fluoride salts with real RIs of 1.32–1.39 was found for both instruments.</p>
      <p id="d1e8449">Overall, the UHSAS tends to perform better for non-absorbing submicron
aerosols with a tighter ratio of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M720" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">UHSAS</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mob</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> around unity than
was observed for the LAS. This strong performance for non-absorbing aerosols
makes sense because the UHSAS has a number of design advantages relative to
the LAS including the longer laser wavelength, which yields a more monotonic
instrument size response for accumulation-mode aerosols up to about 500–600 nm. Meanwhile, the more significant LAS size biases are consistent with the
expected Mie resonances at particle diameters larger than 300–400 nm. An
additional advantage of the UHSAS design for submicron aerosols is the
higher laser power and optimization of all four gain stages toward detecting
smaller particles and achieving a higher submicron size resolution. These
features make the UHSAS an excellent choice for many atmospheric measurement
applications.</p>
      <p id="d1e8480">For absorbing aerosol particles, however, the LAS instrument appears to
outperform the UHSAS in the laboratory tests for both weakly and strongly
absorbing aerosol particles up to about 400–500 nm in diameter. While both
instruments tend to oversize the weakly absorbing particles, the UHSAS bias
is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M721" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5 %–10 % versus the LAS bias of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M722" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0 %–5 %
below 300–350 nm diameters. For larger diameters, the onset of Mie
resonances yields even larger sizing biases. The most striking difference
between the two instruments, however, is seen for the strongly absorbing
fullerene soot and nigrosine dye particles, where the UHSAS significantly
undersizes the particles by more than 20 % at all particle diameters
greater than 80–150 nm. The LAS response to these strongly absorbing
particles is more consistent with theoretical expectations by oversizing the
particles below 200–400 nm and then undersizing them. The radical departure
of the UHSAS size response from theoretical expectations for these compounds
lends support to the hypothesis previously suggested in the literature that
the high-powered UHSAS laser interacts with the particle and alters its size,
similar to the operating principle of the SP2 (Kupc et al., 2018; Howell
et al., 2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e8497">In addition to the laboratory tests, we also examine the UHSAS and LAS size
distribution measurements against other particle sizing techniques used in
recent NASA airborne field campaigns that studied biomass burning smoke
plumes. The consistency between the number size distributions is remarkably
good, with the distribution mode sizes generally agreeing to within 10 % or
better. There is also no evidence to suggest systematic biases between the
optical sizers and instruments based on particle time-of-flight or
electrical mobility techniques that would indicate RI-dependent sizing
errors, even across a wide range of smoke plume ages and concentrations as
well as background conditions.</p>
      <p id="d1e8501">These results confirm past recommendations in the literature to reference
the calibration of the LAS and UHSAS submicron size bins to
mobility-classified ammonium sulfate aerosols. Future work should explore
the supermicron size response of the LAS, which would be relevant for
studies in environments with elevated dust or sea salt aerosol
concentrations. Overall, the results suggest that, while the optical sizers
may underperform for absorbing laboratory compounds and fresh tailpipe
emissions measurements, sampling aerosols within the
atmospherically relevant range of refractive indices are likely to be sized
to better than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M723" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 %–20 % uncertainty over the submicron aerosol size
range when using instruments calibrated with ammonium sulfate. Propagating
this size uncertainty to the higher order moments suggests that the error in
derived aerosol volume is less than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M724" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 15 %–23 % on the lower
end and less than 6 %–11 % on the upper end of realistic RIs for most
aerosol types. Uncertainties in derived volumes for biomass burning aerosols
may be even higher (up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M725" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 %), owing to their typically
larger diameter accumulation-mode size range.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="codeavailability"><title>Code availability</title>

      <p id="d1e8530">The MiePlot program used to carry out the Mie theory calculations is available with instructions and examples online at <uri>http://www.philiplaven.com/mieplot.htm</uri> (Laven, 2021), while a version of the Igor Pro Mie code (which is based on based on the FORTRAN77 code in Bohren and Huffman, 1998, and was initially ported to Igor by Charles A. Brock​​​​​​​) is available online at <uri>http://cires1.colorado.edu/jimenez-group/wiki/index.php/Analysis_Software#Mie_Code</uri> (Jimenez, 2021).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <?pagebreak page4539?><p id="d1e8542">Laboratory data are included as an HDF5 file in the Supplement. The FIREX-AQ and CAMP<inline-formula><mml:math id="M726" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Ex field campaign data are publicly
available in the NASA Airborne Science Data for Atmospheric Composition
Archive at <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/SUBORBITAL/FIREXAQ2019/DATA001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/SUBORBITAL/FIREXAQ2019/DATA001</ext-link> (FIREX-AQ Science Team, 2021) and <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/Suborbital/CAMP2EX2018/DATA001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/Suborbital/CAMP2EX2018/DATA001</ext-link> (CAMP2EX Science Team, 2021)​​​​​​​.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e8560">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-4517-2021-supplement" xlink:title="zip">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-4517-2021-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e8569">RHM designed the laboratory experiments and wrote the first draft of the
manuscript. SZ and LM carried out the laboratory measurements. RHM, EBW,
ATA, PCJ, CER, ELW, CAB, HG, JLJ, ML, BAN, MS, KJS, TJS, KLT, and NLW made the
FIREX-AQ airborne measurements. LDZ, ELW, ECC, NER, MAS, and JW made the
CAMP<inline-formula><mml:math id="M727" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Ex airborne measurements. RHM and ATA performed the Mie theory
calculations. RHM, EBW, ATA, SZ, LM, PCJ, CER, LDZ, ELW, BEA, CAB, MDB, GC, ECC, HG, JLJ, CEJ, ML, BAN, NER, KJS, MS, TJS, MAS, KLT, NLW, and JW contributed to the data interpretation and manuscript revisions.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e8584">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e8590">We thank Barry Lefer (NASA Tropospheric Chemistry Program) and Hal Maring (NASA Radiation Science Program). We thank the FIREX-AQ project scientists
Jim Crawford, Shuka Schwarz, Carsten Warneke, and Jack Dibb, as well as the
pilots and crew of the NASA DC-8. We thank the CAMP<inline-formula><mml:math id="M728" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Ex project
scientist Jeff Reid, as well as the pilots and crew of the NASA P-3.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e8604">This research has been supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Tropospheric Chemistry Program and Radiation Sciences Program). Additional funding support was provided by a NASA New Investigator Award and the NASA NAAMES Earth Venture Suborbital mission. Elizabeth B. Wiggins and Kevin J. Sanchez were supported by NASA Postdoctoral Program fellowships. Melinda Schueneman, Hongyu Guo, Benjamin A. Nault, Pedro Campuzano Jost, and Jose L. Jimenez were supported by NASA grants 80NSSC19K0124 and 80NSSC18K0630.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e8610">This paper was edited by Anthony Bucholtz and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Abo Riziq, A., Erlick, C., Dinar, E., and Rudich, Y.: Optical properties of absorbing and non-absorbing aerosols retrieved by cavity ring down (CRD) spectroscopy, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 1523–1536, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-1523-2007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-7-1523-2007</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Aldhaif, A. M., Stahl, C., Braun, R. A., Moghaddam, M. A., Shingler, T.,
Crosbie, E., Sawamura, P., Dadashazar, H., Ziemba, L., Jimenez, J. L.,
Campuzano-Jost, P., and Sorooshian, A.: Characterization of the Real Part of
Dry Aerosol Refractive Index Over North America From the Surface to 12 km,
J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123, 8283–8300, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028504" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018JD028504</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bluvshtein, N., Flores, J. M., Segev, L., and Rudich, Y.: A new approach for retrieving the UV–vis optical properties of ambient aerosols, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 3477–3490, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-3477-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-9-3477-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Bohren, C. F. and Huffman, D. R.: Absorption and Scattering of Light by
Small Particles, Wiley, Strauss GmbH, Morlenbach, Germany, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Brock, C. A., Cozic, J., Bahreini, R., Froyd, K. D., Middlebrook, A. M., McComiskey, A., Brioude, J., Cooper, O. R., Stohl, A., Aikin, K. C., de Gouw, J. A., Fahey, D. W., Ferrare, R. A., Gao, R.-S., Gore, W., Holloway, J. S., Hübler, G., Jefferson, A., Lack, D. A., Lance, S., Moore, R. H., Murphy, D. M., Nenes, A., Novelli, P. C., Nowak, J. B., Ogren, J. A., Peischl, J., Pierce, R. B., Pilewskie, P., Quinn, P. K., Ryerson, T. B., Schmidt, K. S., Schwarz, J. P., Sodemann, H., Spackman, J. R., Stark, H., Thomson, D. S., Thornberry, T., Veres, P., Watts, L. A., Warneke, C., and Wollny, A. G.: Characteristics, sources, and transport of aerosols measured in spring 2008 during the aerosol, radiation, and cloud processes affecting Arctic Climate (ARCPAC) Project, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 2423–2453, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-2423-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-2423-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Brock, C. A., Wagner, N. L., Anderson, B. E., Attwood, A. R., Beyersdorf, A., Campuzano-Jost, P., Carlton, A. G., Day, D. A., Diskin, G. S., Gordon, T. D., Jimenez, J. L., Lack, D. A., Liao, J., Markovic, M. Z., Middlebrook, A. M., Ng, N. L., Perring, A. E., Richardson, M. S., Schwarz, J. P., Washenfelder, R. A., Welti, A., Xu, L., Ziemba, L. D., and Murphy, D. M.: Aerosol optical properties in the southeastern United States in summer – Part 1: Hygroscopic growth, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 4987–5007, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-4987-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-4987-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Brock, C. A., Williamson, C., Kupc, A., Froyd, K. D., Erdesz, F., Wagner, N., Richardson, M., Schwarz, J. P., Gao, R.-S., Katich, J. M., Campuzano-Jost, P., Nault, B. A., Schroder, J. C., Jimenez, J. L., Weinzierl, B., Dollner, M., Bui, T., and Murphy, D. M.: Aerosol size distributions during the Atmospheric Tomography Mission (ATom): methods, uncertainties, and data products, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 3081–3099, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-3081-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-12-3081-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Cai, Y., Montague, D. C., Mooiweer-Bryan, W., and Deshler, T.: Performance
characteristics of the ultra high sensitivity aerosol spectrometer for
particles between 55 and 800 nm: Laboratory and field studies, J. Aerosol Sci., 39, 759–769, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2008.04.007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jaerosci.2008.04.007</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>CAMP2EX Science Team: Clouds, Aerosol, and Monsoon Processes – Philippines Experiment Data Set, Atmospheric Science Dat<?pagebreak page4540?>a Center, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/Suborbital/CAMP2EX2018/DATA001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/Suborbital/CAMP2EX2018/DATA001</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Canagaratna, M. R., Jayne, J. T., Jimenez, J. L., Allan, J. D., Alfarra, M.
R., Zhang, Q., Onasch, T. B., Drewnick, F., Coe, H., Middlebrook, A., Delia,
A., Williams, L. R., Trimborn, A. M., Northway, M. J., DeCarlo, P. F., Kolb,
C. E., Davidovits, P., and Worsnop, D. R.: Chemical and microphysical
characterization of ambient aerosols with the aerodyne aerosol mass
spectrometer, Mass Spectrom. Rev., 26, 185–222, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/mas.20115" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/mas.20115</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Cappa, C. D., Che, D. L., Kessler, S. H., Kroll, J. H., and Wilson, K. R.:
Variations in organic aerosol optical and hygroscopic properties upon
heterogeneous OH oxidation, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
116, D15204, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD015918" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JD015918</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>DeCarlo, P. F., Slowik, J. G., Worsnop, D. R., Davidovits, P., and Jimenez,
J. L.: Particle Morphology and Density Characterization by Combined Mobility
and Aerodynamic Diameter Measurements. Part 1: Theory, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 38, 1185–1205, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290903907" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/027868290903907</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>DeCarlo, P. F., Kimmel, J. R., Trimborn, A., Northway, M. J., Jayne, J. T.,
Aiken, A. C., Gonin, M., Fuhrer, K., Horvath, T., Docherty, K. S., Worsnop,
D. R., and Jimenez, J. L.: Field-Deployable, High-Resolution, Time-of-Flight
Aerosol Mass Spectrometer, Anal. Chem., 78, 8281–8289, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/ac061249n" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/ac061249n</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dinar, E., Abo Riziq, A., Spindler, C., Erlick, C., Kiss, G., and Rudich,
Y.: The complex refractive index of atmospheric and model humic-like
substances (HULIS) retrieved by a cavity ring down aerosol spectrometer
(CRD-AS), Faraday Discuss., 137, 279–295, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1039/B703111D" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1039/B703111D</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
DMT: Ultra High Sensitivity Aerosol Spectrometer DMT Model UHSAS-0.055
(0.055-1.0 microns) Manual, Revision E, Droplet Measurement Technologies,
Boulder, CO, USA, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Eck, T. F., Holben, B. N., Reid, J. S., Mukelabai, M. M., Piketh, S. J.,
Torres, O., Jethva, H. T., Hyer, E. J., Ward, D. E., Dubovik, O., Sinyuk,
A., Schafer, J. S., Giles, D. M., Sorokin, M., Smirnov, A., and Slutsker,
I.: A seasonal trend of single scattering albedo in southern African
biomass-burning particles: Implications for satellite products and estimates
of emissions for the world's largest biomass-burning source, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 6414–6432, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50500" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jgrd.50500</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Espinosa, W. R., Martins, J. V., Remer, L. A., Dubovik, O., Lapyonok, T.,
Fuertes, D., Puthukkudy, A., Orozco, D., Ziemba, L., Thornhill, K. L., and
Levy, R.: Retrievals of Aerosol Size Distribution, Spherical Fraction, and
Complex Refractive Index From Airborne In Situ Angular Light Scattering and
Absorption Measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124,
7997–8024, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD030009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018JD030009</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>FIREX-AQ Science Team: Fire Influence on Regional to Global Environments and Air Quality Data Set, Atmospheric Science Data Center, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/SUBORBITAL/FIREXAQ2019/DATA001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/SUBORBITAL/FIREXAQ2019/DATA001</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Forrister, H., Liu, J., Scheuer, E., Dibb, J., Ziemba, L., Thornhill, K. L.,
Anderson, B., Diskin, G., Perring, A. E., Schwarz, J. P., Campuzano-Jost,
P., Day, D. A., Palm, B. B., Jimenez, J. L., Nenes, A., and Weber, R. J.:
Evolution of brown carbon in wildfire plumes, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
42, 4623–4630, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063897" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015GL063897</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Froyd, K. D., Murphy, D. M., Brock, C. A., Campuzano-Jost, P., Dibb, J. E., Jimenez, J.-L., Kupc, A., Middlebrook, A. M., Schill, G. P., Thornhill, K. L., Williamson, C. J., Wilson, J. C., and Ziemba, L. D.: A new method to quantify mineral dust and other aerosol species from aircraft platforms using single-particle mass spectrometry, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 6209–6239, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-6209-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-12-6209-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Garvey, D. M. and Pinnick, R. G.: Response Characteristics of the Particle
Measuring Systems Active Scattering Aerosol Spectrometer Probe (ASASP–X),
Aerosol Sci. Tech., 2, 477–488, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786828308958651" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786828308958651</ext-link>, 1983.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Guo, H., Campuzano-Jost, P., Nault, B. A., Day, D. A., Schroder, J. C., Kim, D., Dibb, J. E., Dollner, M., Weinzierl, B., and Jimenez, J. L.: The importance of size ranges in aerosol instrument intercomparisons: a case study for the Atmospheric Tomography Mission, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 3631–3655, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-3631-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-14-3631-2021</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hand, J. L. and Kreidenweis, S. M.: A New Method for Retrieving Particle
Refractive Index and Effective Density from Aerosol Size Distribution Data,
Aerosol Sci. Tech., 36, 1012–1026, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820290092276" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786820290092276</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>He, Q., Bluvshtein, N., Segev, L., Meidan, D., Flores, J. M., Brown, S. S.,
Brune, W., and Rudich, Y.: Evolution of the Complex Refractive Index of
Secondary Organic Aerosols during Atmospheric Aging, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 52, 3456–3465, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05742" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.est.7b05742</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Howell, S. G., Freitag, S., Dobracki, A., Smirnow, N., and Sedlacek III, A. J.: Undersizing of Aged African Biomass Burning Aerosol by an Ultra High Sensitivity Aerosol Spectrometer, Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss. [preprint], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2020-416" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-2020-416</ext-link>, in review, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hungershoefer, K., Zeromskiene, K., Iinuma, Y., Helas, G., Trentmann, J., Trautmann, T., Parmar, R. S., Wiedensohler, A., Andreae, M. O., and Schmid, O.: Modelling the optical properties of fresh biomass burning aerosol produced in a smoke chamber: results from the EFEU campaign, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 3427–3439, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-3427-2008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-8-3427-2008</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jimenez, J. L.: Jimenez Research Group Wiki: Mie Code Analysis Software, available at: <uri>http://cires1.colorado.edu/jimenez-group/wiki/index.php/Analysis_Software#Mie_Code</uri>, last access: 14 June 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jurányi, Z. and Weller, R.: One year of aerosol refractive index measurement from a coastal Antarctic site, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 14417–14430, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-14417-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-14417-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kim, H. and Paulson, S. E.: Real refractive indices and volatility of secondary organic aerosol generated from photooxidation and ozonolysis of limonene, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M729" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-pinene and toluene, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 7711–7723, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-7711-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-7711-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kim, J., Bauer, H., Dobovičnik, T., Hitzenberger, R., Lottin, D., Ferry,
D., and Petzold, A.: Assessing Optical Properties and Refractive Index of
Combustion Aerosol Particles Through Combined Experimental and Modeling
Studies, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 49, 340–350, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2015.1020996" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786826.2015.1020996</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kimmel, J. R., Farmer, D. K., Cubison, M. J., Sueper, D., Tanner, C.,
Nemitz, E., Worsnop, D. R., Gonin, M., and Jimenez, J. L.: Real-time aerosol
mass spectrometry wit<?pagebreak page4541?>h millisecond resolution, Int. J. Mass
Spectrom., 303, 15–26, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2010.12.004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ijms.2010.12.004</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kleinman, L. I., Sedlacek III, A. J., Adachi, K., Buseck, P. R., Collier, S., Dubey, M. K., Hodshire, A. L., Lewis, E., Onasch, T. B., Pierce, J. R., Shilling, J., Springston, S. R., Wang, J., Zhang, Q., Zhou, S., and Yokelson, R. J.: Rapid evolution of aerosol particles and their optical properties downwind of wildfires in the western US, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 13319–13341, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13319-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-20-13319-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kulkarni, P. and Wang, J.: New fast integrated mobility spectrometer for
real-time measurement of aerosol size distribution – I: Concept and theory,
J. Aerosol Sci., 37, 1303–1325, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2006.01.005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jaerosci.2006.01.005</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kupc, A., Williamson, C., Wagner, N. L., Richardson, M., and Brock, C. A.: Modification, calibration, and performance of the Ultra-High Sensitivity Aerosol Spectrometer for particle size distribution and volatility measurements during the Atmospheric Tomography Mission (ATom) airborne campaign, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 369–383, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-369-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-11-369-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kuwata, M., Zorn, S. R., and Martin, S. T.: Using Elemental Ratios to
Predict the Density of Organic Material Composed of Carbon, Hydrogen, and
Oxygen, Environ. Sci. Technol., 46, 787–794, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es202525q" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es202525q</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Laven, P.: Simulation of rainbows, coronas, and glories by use of Mie
theory, Appl. Optics, 42, 436–444, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.42.000436" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/AO.42.000436</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Laven, P.: MiePlot, available at: <uri>http://www.philiplaven.com/mieplot.htm</uri>, last access: 14 June 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Li, H. H.: Refractive index of alkali halides and its wavelength and
temperature derivatives, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, 5,
329–528, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1063/1.555536" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1063/1.555536</ext-link>, 1976.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ma, X., Lu, J. Q., Brock, R. S., Jacobs, K. M., Yang, P., and Hu, X.-H.:
Determination of complex refractive index of polystyrene microspheres from
370 to 1610 nm, Phys. Med. Biol., 48, 4165–4172, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/48/24/013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/0031-9155/48/24/013</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mack, L. A., Levin, E. J. T., Kreidenweis, S. M., Obrist, D., Moosmüller, H., Lewis, K. A., Arnott, W. P., McMeeking, G. R., Sullivan, A. P., Wold, C. E., Hao, W.-M., Collett Jr., J. L., and Malm, W. C.: Optical closure experiments for biomass smoke aerosols, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 9017–9026, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-9017-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-9017-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>McMeeking, G. R., Kreidenweis, S. M., Carrico, C. M., Lee, T., Collett Jr.,
J. L., and Malm, W. C.: Observations of smoke-influenced aerosol during the
Yosemite Aerosol Characterization Study: Size distributions and chemical
composition, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 110, D09206, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005389" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JD005389</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Michel Flores, J., Bar-Or, R. Z., Bluvshtein, N., Abo-Riziq, A., Kostinski, A., Borrmann, S., Koren, I., Koren, I., and Rudich, Y.: Absorbing aerosols at high relative humidity: linking hygroscopic growth to optical properties, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 5511–5521, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-5511-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-5511-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mie, G.: Beiträge zur Optik trüber Medien, speziell kolloidaler
Metallösungen, Ann. Phys.-Berlin, 330, 377–445, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19083300302" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/andp.19083300302</ext-link>, 1908.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Moore, R. H., Thornhill, K. L., Weinzierl, B., Sauer, D., D'Ascoli, E., Kim,
J., Lichtenstern, M., Scheibe, M., Beaton, B., Beyersdorf, A. J., Barrick,
J., Bulzan, D., Corr, C. A., Crosbie, E., Jurkat, T., Martin, R., Riddick,
D., Shook, M., Slover, G., Voigt, C., White, R., Winstead, E., Yasky, R.,
Ziemba, L. D., Brown, A., Schlager, H., and Anderson, B. E.: Biofuel
blending reduces particle emissions from aircraft engines at cruise
conditions, Nature, 543, 411–415, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21420" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature21420</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Moteki, N. and Kondo, Y.: Dependence of Laser-Induced Incandescence on
Physical Properties of Black Carbon Aerosols: Measurements and Theoretical
Interpretation, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 44, 663–675, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2010.484450" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786826.2010.484450</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Nault, B. A., Campuzano-Jost, P., Day, D. A., Schroder, J. C., Anderson, B., Beyersdorf, A. J., Blake, D. R., Brune, W. H., Choi, Y., Corr, C. A., de Gouw, J. A., Dibb, J., DiGangi, J. P., Diskin, G. S., Fried, A., Huey, L. G., Kim, M. J., Knote, C. J., Lamb, K. D., Lee, T., Park, T., Pusede, S. E., Scheuer, E., Thornhill, K. L., Woo, J.-H., and Jimenez, J. L.: Secondary organic aerosol production from local emissions dominates the organic aerosol budget over Seoul, South Korea, during KORUS-AQ, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 17769–17800, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17769-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-17769-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pokhrel, R. P., Wagner, N. L., Langridge, J. M., Lack, D. A., Jayarathne, T., Stone, E. A., Stockwell, C. E., Yokelson, R. J., and Murphy, S. M.: Parameterization of single-scattering albedo (SSA) and absorption Ångström exponent (AAE) with EC / OC for aerosol emissions from biomass burning, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 9549–9561, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-9549-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-9549-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Salcedo, D., Onasch, T. B., Dzepina, K., Canagaratna, M. R., Zhang, Q., Huffman, J. A., DeCarlo, P. F., Jayne, J. T., Mortimer, P., Worsnop, D. R., Kolb, C. E., Johnson, K. S., Zuberi, B., Marr, L. C., Volkamer, R., Molina, L. T., Molina, M. J., Cardenas, B., Bernabé, R. M., Márquez, C., Gaffney, J. S., Marley, N. A., Laskin, A., Shutthanandan, V., Xie, Y., Brune, W., Lesher, R., Shirley, T., and Jimenez, J. L.: Characterization of ambient aerosols in Mexico City during the MCMA-2003 campaign with Aerosol Mass Spectrometry: results from the CENICA Supersite, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 925–946, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-925-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-925-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Saleh, R., Robinson, E. S., Tkacik, D. S., Ahern, A. T., Liu, S., Aiken, A.
C., Sullivan, R. C., Presto, A. A., Dubey, M. K., Yokelson, R. J., Donahue,
N. M., and Robinson, A. L.: Brownness of organics in aerosols from biomass
burning linked to their black carbon content, Nat. Geosci., 7, 647–650,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2220" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo2220</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sawamura, P., Moore, R. H., Burton, S. P., Chemyakin, E., Müller, D., Kolgotin, A., Ferrare, R. A., Hostetler, C. A., Ziemba, L. D., Beyersdorf, A. J., and Anderson, B. E.: HSRL-2 aerosol optical measurements and microphysical retrievals vs. airborne in situ measurements during DISCOVER-AQ 2013: an intercomparison study, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 7229–7243, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-7229-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-7229-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Selimovic, V., Yokelson, R. J., McMeeking, G. R., and Coefield, S.: In situ measurements of trace gases, PM, and aerosol optical properties during the 2017 NW US wildfire smoke event, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 3905–3926, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-3905-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-3905-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Shepherd, R. H., King, M. D., Marks, A. A., Brough, N., and Ward, A. D.: Determination of the refractive index of insoluble organic extracts from atmospheric aerosol over the visible wavelengt<?pagebreak page4542?>h range using optical tweezers, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 5235–5252, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-5235-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-5235-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Shingler, T., Crosbie, E., Ortega, A., Shiraiwa, M., Zuend, A., Beyersdorf,
A., Ziemba, L., Anderson, B., Thornhill, L., Perring, A. E., Schwarz, J. P.,
Campazano-Jost, P., Day, D. A., Jimenez, J. L., Hair, J. W., Mikoviny, T.,
Wisthaler, A., and Sorooshian, A.: Airborne characterization of subsaturated
aerosol hygroscopicity and dry refractive index from the surface to 6.5 km
during the SEAC4RS campaign, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
121, 4188–4210, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024498" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JD024498</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Slowik, J. G., Stainken, K., Davidovits, P., Williams, L. R., Jayne, J. T.,
Kolb, C. E., Worsnop, D. R., Rudich, Y., DeCarlo, P. F., and Jimenez, J. L.:
Particle Morphology and Density Characterization by Combined Mobility and
Aerodynamic Diameter Measurements. Part 2: Application to
Combustion-Generated Soot Aerosols as a Function of Fuel Equivalence Ratio,
Aerosol Sci. Tech., 38, 1206–1222, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290903916" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/027868290903916</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sumlin, B. J., Heinson, Y. W., Shetty, N., Pandey, A., Pattison, R. S.,
Baker, S., Hao, W. M., and Chakrabarty, R. K.: UV–Vis–IR spectral complex
refractive indices and optical properties of brown carbon aerosol from
biomass burning, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Ra., 206, 392–398, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2017.12.009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jqsrt.2017.12.009</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Tang, I. N. and Munkelwitz, H. R.: Simultaneous Determination of Refractive
Index and Density of an Evaporating Aqueous Solution Droplet,
Aerosol Sci. Tech., 15, 201–207, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829108959527" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786829108959527</ext-link>, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Tang, I. N. and Munkelwitz, H. R.: Water activities, densities, and
refractive indices of aqueous sulfates and sodium nitrate droplets of
atmospheric importance, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 99,
18801–18808, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/94JD01345" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/94JD01345</ext-link>, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Toon, O. B., Pollack, J. B., and Khare, B. N.: The optical constants of
several atmospheric aerosol species: Ammonium sulfate, aluminum oxide, and
sodium chloride, J. Geophys. Res., 81, 5733–5748,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JC081i033p05733" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/JC081i033p05733</ext-link>, 1976.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
TSI: Laser Aerosol Spectrometer Model 3340: Operation and Service Manual,
Revision G, TSI, Incorporated, Shoreview, MN, USA, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wang, J., Pikridas, M., Spielman, S. R., and Pinterich, T.: A fast
integrated mobility spectrometer for rapid measurement of sub-micrometer
aerosol size distribution, Part I: Design and model evaluation,
J. Aerosol Sci., 108, 44–55, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.02.012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.02.012</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Pinterich, T., and Wang, J.: Rapid measurement of sub-micrometer
aerosol size distribution using a fast integrated mobility spectrometer,
J. Aerosol Sci., 121, 12–20, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2018.03.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jaerosci.2018.03.006</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wiggins, E. B., Soja, A. J., Gargulinski, E., Halliday, H. S., Pierce, R.
B., Schmidt, C. C., Nowak, J. B., DiGangi, J. P., Diskin, G. S., Katich, J.
M., Perring, A. E., Schwarz, J. P., Anderson, B. E., Chen, G., Crosbie, E.
C., Jordan, C., Robinson, C. E., Sanchez, K. J., Shingler, T. J., Shook, M.,
Thornhill, K. L., Winstead, E. L., Ziemba, L. D., and Moore, R. H.: High
Temporal Resolution Satellite Observations of Fire Radiative Power Reveal
Link Between Fire Behavior and Aerosol and Gas Emissions,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL090707, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090707" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2020GL090707</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Zimmerman, S., Moore, R., Anderson, B., Beyersdorf, A., Corr, C., Shook, M.,
Thornhill, K., Winstead, E., and Ziemba, L.: Evaluation of Combined
Electrical Mobility and Optical Sizing Techniques for Deriving Aerosol
Refractive Index, American Association for Aerosol Research (AAAR) Annual
Meeting, 12–16 October 2015, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Sizing response of the Ultra-High Sensitivity Aerosol Spectrometer (UHSAS) and Laser Aerosol Spectrometer (LAS) to changes in submicron aerosol composition and refractive index</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>We evaluate the sensitivity of the size calibrations of
two commercially available, high-resolution optical particle sizers to
changes in aerosol composition and complex refractive index (RI). The
Droplet Measurement Technologies Ultra-High Sensitivity Aerosol Spectrometer (UHSAS) and the TSI, Inc. Laser Aerosol Spectrometer (LAS) are
two commonly used instruments for measuring the portion of the aerosol size
distribution with diameters larger than nominally 60–90&thinsp;nm. Both instruments
illuminate particles with a laser and relate the single-particle light
scattering intensity and count rate measured over a wide range of angles to
the size-dependent particle concentration. While the optical block geometry
and flow system are similar for each instrument, a significant difference
between the two models is the laser wavelength (1054&thinsp;nm for the UHSAS and
633&thinsp;nm for the LAS) and intensity (about 100 times higher for the UHSAS), which
may affect the way each instrument sizes non-spherical or absorbing
aerosols. Here, we challenge the UHSAS and LAS with laboratory-generated,
mobility-size-classified aerosols of known chemical composition to quantify
changes in the optical size response relative to that of ammonium sulfate
(RI of 1.52+0<i>i</i> at 532&thinsp;nm) and NIST-traceable polystyrene latex spheres
(PSLs with RI of 1.59+0<i>i</i> at 589&thinsp;nm). Aerosol inorganic salt species are
chosen to cover the real refractive index range of 1.32 to 1.78, while
chosen light-absorbing carbonaceous aerosols include fullerene soot,
nigrosine dye, humic acid, and fulvic acid standards. The instrument
response is generally in good agreement with the electrical mobility
diameter. However, large undersizing deviations are observed for the
low-refractive-index fluoride salts and the strongly absorbing nigrosine dye and fullerene soot particles. Polydisperse size distributions for both fresh
and aged wildfire smoke aerosols from the recent Fire Influence on Regional
to Global Environments Experiment and Air Quality (FIREX-AQ) and the Cloud,
Aerosol, and Monsoon Processes Philippines Experiment (CAMP<sup>2</sup>Ex)
airborne campaigns show good agreement between both optical sizers and
contemporaneous electrical mobility sizing and particle time-of-flight mass
spectrometric measurements. We assess the instrument uncertainties by
interpolating the laboratory response curves using previously reported RIs
and size distributions for multiple aerosol type classifications. These
results suggest that, while the optical sizers may underperform for strongly
absorbing laboratory compounds and fresh tailpipe emissions measurements,
sampling aerosols within the atmospherically relevant range of refractive
indices are likely to be sized to better than ±10&thinsp;%–20&thinsp;% uncertainty over the submicron aerosol size range when using instruments calibrated with
ammonium sulfate.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Abo Riziq, A., Erlick, C., Dinar, E., and Rudich, Y.: Optical properties of absorbing and non-absorbing aerosols retrieved by cavity ring down (CRD) spectroscopy, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 1523–1536, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-1523-2007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-1523-2007</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Aldhaif, A. M., Stahl, C., Braun, R. A., Moghaddam, M. A., Shingler, T.,
Crosbie, E., Sawamura, P., Dadashazar, H., Ziemba, L., Jimenez, J. L.,
Campuzano-Jost, P., and Sorooshian, A.: Characterization of the Real Part of
Dry Aerosol Refractive Index Over North America From the Surface to 12&thinsp;km,
J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123, 8283–8300, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028504" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028504</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Bluvshtein, N., Flores, J. M., Segev, L., and Rudich, Y.: A new approach for retrieving the UV–vis optical properties of ambient aerosols, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 3477–3490, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-3477-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-3477-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bohren, C. F. and Huffman, D. R.: Absorption and Scattering of Light by
Small Particles, Wiley, Strauss GmbH, Morlenbach, Germany, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Brock, C. A., Cozic, J., Bahreini, R., Froyd, K. D., Middlebrook, A. M., McComiskey, A., Brioude, J., Cooper, O. R., Stohl, A., Aikin, K. C., de Gouw, J. A., Fahey, D. W., Ferrare, R. A., Gao, R.-S., Gore, W., Holloway, J. S., Hübler, G., Jefferson, A., Lack, D. A., Lance, S., Moore, R. H., Murphy, D. M., Nenes, A., Novelli, P. C., Nowak, J. B., Ogren, J. A., Peischl, J., Pierce, R. B., Pilewskie, P., Quinn, P. K., Ryerson, T. B., Schmidt, K. S., Schwarz, J. P., Sodemann, H., Spackman, J. R., Stark, H., Thomson, D. S., Thornberry, T., Veres, P., Watts, L. A., Warneke, C., and Wollny, A. G.: Characteristics, sources, and transport of aerosols measured in spring 2008 during the aerosol, radiation, and cloud processes affecting Arctic Climate (ARCPAC) Project, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 2423–2453, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-2423-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-2423-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Brock, C. A., Wagner, N. L., Anderson, B. E., Attwood, A. R., Beyersdorf, A., Campuzano-Jost, P., Carlton, A. G., Day, D. A., Diskin, G. S., Gordon, T. D., Jimenez, J. L., Lack, D. A., Liao, J., Markovic, M. Z., Middlebrook, A. M., Ng, N. L., Perring, A. E., Richardson, M. S., Schwarz, J. P., Washenfelder, R. A., Welti, A., Xu, L., Ziemba, L. D., and Murphy, D. M.: Aerosol optical properties in the southeastern United States in summer – Part 1: Hygroscopic growth, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 4987–5007, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-4987-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-4987-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Brock, C. A., Williamson, C., Kupc, A., Froyd, K. D., Erdesz, F., Wagner, N., Richardson, M., Schwarz, J. P., Gao, R.-S., Katich, J. M., Campuzano-Jost, P., Nault, B. A., Schroder, J. C., Jimenez, J. L., Weinzierl, B., Dollner, M., Bui, T., and Murphy, D. M.: Aerosol size distributions during the Atmospheric Tomography Mission (ATom): methods, uncertainties, and data products, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 3081–3099, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-3081-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-3081-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Cai, Y., Montague, D. C., Mooiweer-Bryan, W., and Deshler, T.: Performance
characteristics of the ultra high sensitivity aerosol spectrometer for
particles between 55 and 800&thinsp;nm: Laboratory and field studies, J. Aerosol Sci., 39, 759–769, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2008.04.007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2008.04.007</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
CAMP2EX Science Team: Clouds, Aerosol, and Monsoon Processes – Philippines Experiment Data Set, Atmospheric Science Data Center, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5067/Suborbital/CAMP2EX2018/DATA001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5067/Suborbital/CAMP2EX2018/DATA001</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Canagaratna, M. R., Jayne, J. T., Jimenez, J. L., Allan, J. D., Alfarra, M.
R., Zhang, Q., Onasch, T. B., Drewnick, F., Coe, H., Middlebrook, A., Delia,
A., Williams, L. R., Trimborn, A. M., Northway, M. J., DeCarlo, P. F., Kolb,
C. E., Davidovits, P., and Worsnop, D. R.: Chemical and microphysical
characterization of ambient aerosols with the aerodyne aerosol mass
spectrometer, Mass Spectrom. Rev., 26, 185–222, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/mas.20115" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/mas.20115</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Cappa, C. D., Che, D. L., Kessler, S. H., Kroll, J. H., and Wilson, K. R.:
Variations in organic aerosol optical and hygroscopic properties upon
heterogeneous OH oxidation, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
116, D15204, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD015918" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD015918</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
DeCarlo, P. F., Slowik, J. G., Worsnop, D. R., Davidovits, P., and Jimenez,
J. L.: Particle Morphology and Density Characterization by Combined Mobility
and Aerodynamic Diameter Measurements. Part 1: Theory, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 38, 1185–1205, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290903907" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290903907</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
DeCarlo, P. F., Kimmel, J. R., Trimborn, A., Northway, M. J., Jayne, J. T.,
Aiken, A. C., Gonin, M., Fuhrer, K., Horvath, T., Docherty, K. S., Worsnop,
D. R., and Jimenez, J. L.: Field-Deployable, High-Resolution, Time-of-Flight
Aerosol Mass Spectrometer, Anal. Chem., 78, 8281–8289, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/ac061249n" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/ac061249n</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Dinar, E., Abo Riziq, A., Spindler, C., Erlick, C., Kiss, G., and Rudich,
Y.: The complex refractive index of atmospheric and model humic-like
substances (HULIS) retrieved by a cavity ring down aerosol spectrometer
(CRD-AS), Faraday Discuss., 137, 279–295, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1039/B703111D" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1039/B703111D</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
DMT: Ultra High Sensitivity Aerosol Spectrometer DMT Model UHSAS-0.055
(0.055-1.0 microns) Manual, Revision E, Droplet Measurement Technologies,
Boulder, CO, USA, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Eck, T. F., Holben, B. N., Reid, J. S., Mukelabai, M. M., Piketh, S. J.,
Torres, O., Jethva, H. T., Hyer, E. J., Ward, D. E., Dubovik, O., Sinyuk,
A., Schafer, J. S., Giles, D. M., Sorokin, M., Smirnov, A., and Slutsker,
I.: A seasonal trend of single scattering albedo in southern African
biomass-burning particles: Implications for satellite products and estimates
of emissions for the world's largest biomass-burning source, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 6414–6432, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50500" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50500</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Espinosa, W. R., Martins, J. V., Remer, L. A., Dubovik, O., Lapyonok, T.,
Fuertes, D., Puthukkudy, A., Orozco, D., Ziemba, L., Thornhill, K. L., and
Levy, R.: Retrievals of Aerosol Size Distribution, Spherical Fraction, and
Complex Refractive Index From Airborne In Situ Angular Light Scattering and
Absorption Measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124,
7997–8024, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD030009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD030009</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
FIREX-AQ Science Team: Fire Influence on Regional to Global Environments and Air Quality Data Set, Atmospheric Science Data Center, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5067/SUBORBITAL/FIREXAQ2019/DATA001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5067/SUBORBITAL/FIREXAQ2019/DATA001</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Forrister, H., Liu, J., Scheuer, E., Dibb, J., Ziemba, L., Thornhill, K. L.,
Anderson, B., Diskin, G., Perring, A. E., Schwarz, J. P., Campuzano-Jost,
P., Day, D. A., Palm, B. B., Jimenez, J. L., Nenes, A., and Weber, R. J.:
Evolution of brown carbon in wildfire plumes, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
42, 4623–4630, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063897" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063897</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Froyd, K. D., Murphy, D. M., Brock, C. A., Campuzano-Jost, P., Dibb, J. E., Jimenez, J.-L., Kupc, A., Middlebrook, A. M., Schill, G. P., Thornhill, K. L., Williamson, C. J., Wilson, J. C., and Ziemba, L. D.: A new method to quantify mineral dust and other aerosol species from aircraft platforms using single-particle mass spectrometry, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 6209–6239, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-6209-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-6209-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Garvey, D. M. and Pinnick, R. G.: Response Characteristics of the Particle
Measuring Systems Active Scattering Aerosol Spectrometer Probe (ASASP–X),
Aerosol Sci. Tech., 2, 477–488, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786828308958651" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786828308958651</a>, 1983.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Guo, H., Campuzano-Jost, P., Nault, B. A., Day, D. A., Schroder, J. C., Kim, D., Dibb, J. E., Dollner, M., Weinzierl, B., and Jimenez, J. L.: The importance of size ranges in aerosol instrument intercomparisons: a case study for the Atmospheric Tomography Mission, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 3631–3655, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-3631-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-3631-2021</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Hand, J. L. and Kreidenweis, S. M.: A New Method for Retrieving Particle
Refractive Index and Effective Density from Aerosol Size Distribution Data,
Aerosol Sci. Tech., 36, 1012–1026, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820290092276" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820290092276</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
He, Q., Bluvshtein, N., Segev, L., Meidan, D., Flores, J. M., Brown, S. S.,
Brune, W., and Rudich, Y.: Evolution of the Complex Refractive Index of
Secondary Organic Aerosols during Atmospheric Aging, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 52, 3456–3465, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05742" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05742</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Howell, S. G., Freitag, S., Dobracki, A., Smirnow, N., and Sedlacek III, A. J.: Undersizing of Aged African Biomass Burning Aerosol by an Ultra High Sensitivity Aerosol Spectrometer, Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss. [preprint], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2020-416" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2020-416</a>, in review, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Hungershoefer, K., Zeromskiene, K., Iinuma, Y., Helas, G., Trentmann, J., Trautmann, T., Parmar, R. S., Wiedensohler, A., Andreae, M. O., and Schmid, O.: Modelling the optical properties of fresh biomass burning aerosol produced in a smoke chamber: results from the EFEU campaign, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 3427–3439, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-3427-2008" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-3427-2008</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Jimenez, J. L.: Jimenez Research Group Wiki: Mie Code Analysis Software, available at: <a href="http://cires1.colorado.edu/jimenez-group/wiki/index.php/Analysis_Software#Mie_Code" target="_blank"/>, last access: 14 June 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Jurányi, Z. and Weller, R.: One year of aerosol refractive index measurement from a coastal Antarctic site, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 14417–14430, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-14417-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-14417-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Kim, H. and Paulson, S. E.: Real refractive indices and volatility of secondary organic aerosol generated from photooxidation and ozonolysis of limonene, <i>α</i>-pinene and toluene, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 7711–7723, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-7711-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-7711-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Kim, J., Bauer, H., Dobovičnik, T., Hitzenberger, R., Lottin, D., Ferry,
D., and Petzold, A.: Assessing Optical Properties and Refractive Index of
Combustion Aerosol Particles Through Combined Experimental and Modeling
Studies, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 49, 340–350, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2015.1020996" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2015.1020996</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Kimmel, J. R., Farmer, D. K., Cubison, M. J., Sueper, D., Tanner, C.,
Nemitz, E., Worsnop, D. R., Gonin, M., and Jimenez, J. L.: Real-time aerosol
mass spectrometry with millisecond resolution, Int. J. Mass
Spectrom., 303, 15–26, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2010.12.004" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2010.12.004</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Kleinman, L. I., Sedlacek III, A. J., Adachi, K., Buseck, P. R., Collier, S., Dubey, M. K., Hodshire, A. L., Lewis, E., Onasch, T. B., Pierce, J. R., Shilling, J., Springston, S. R., Wang, J., Zhang, Q., Zhou, S., and Yokelson, R. J.: Rapid evolution of aerosol particles and their optical properties downwind of wildfires in the western US, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 13319–13341, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13319-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13319-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Kulkarni, P. and Wang, J.: New fast integrated mobility spectrometer for
real-time measurement of aerosol size distribution – I: Concept and theory,
J. Aerosol Sci., 37, 1303–1325, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2006.01.005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2006.01.005</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Kupc, A., Williamson, C., Wagner, N. L., Richardson, M., and Brock, C. A.: Modification, calibration, and performance of the Ultra-High Sensitivity Aerosol Spectrometer for particle size distribution and volatility measurements during the Atmospheric Tomography Mission (ATom) airborne campaign, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 369–383, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-369-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-369-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Kuwata, M., Zorn, S. R., and Martin, S. T.: Using Elemental Ratios to
Predict the Density of Organic Material Composed of Carbon, Hydrogen, and
Oxygen, Environ. Sci. Technol., 46, 787–794, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es202525q" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es202525q</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Laven, P.: Simulation of rainbows, coronas, and glories by use of Mie
theory, Appl. Optics, 42, 436–444, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.42.000436" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.42.000436</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Laven, P.: MiePlot, available at: <a href="http://www.philiplaven.com/mieplot.htm" target="_blank"/>, last access: 14 June 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Li, H. H.: Refractive index of alkali halides and its wavelength and
temperature derivatives, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, 5,
329–528, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1063/1.555536" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1063/1.555536</a>, 1976.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Ma, X., Lu, J. Q., Brock, R. S., Jacobs, K. M., Yang, P., and Hu, X.-H.:
Determination of complex refractive index of polystyrene microspheres from
370 to 1610&thinsp;nm, Phys. Med. Biol., 48, 4165–4172, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/48/24/013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/48/24/013</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Mack, L. A., Levin, E. J. T., Kreidenweis, S. M., Obrist, D., Moosmüller, H., Lewis, K. A., Arnott, W. P., McMeeking, G. R., Sullivan, A. P., Wold, C. E., Hao, W.-M., Collett Jr., J. L., and Malm, W. C.: Optical closure experiments for biomass smoke aerosols, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 9017–9026, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-9017-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-9017-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
McMeeking, G. R., Kreidenweis, S. M., Carrico, C. M., Lee, T., Collett Jr.,
J. L., and Malm, W. C.: Observations of smoke-influenced aerosol during the
Yosemite Aerosol Characterization Study: Size distributions and chemical
composition, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 110, D09206, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005389" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005389</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Michel Flores, J., Bar-Or, R. Z., Bluvshtein, N., Abo-Riziq, A., Kostinski, A., Borrmann, S., Koren, I., Koren, I., and Rudich, Y.: Absorbing aerosols at high relative humidity: linking hygroscopic growth to optical properties, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 5511–5521, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-5511-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-5511-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Mie, G.: Beiträge zur Optik trüber Medien, speziell kolloidaler
Metallösungen, Ann. Phys.-Berlin, 330, 377–445, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19083300302" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19083300302</a>, 1908.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Moore, R. H., Thornhill, K. L., Weinzierl, B., Sauer, D., D'Ascoli, E., Kim,
J., Lichtenstern, M., Scheibe, M., Beaton, B., Beyersdorf, A. J., Barrick,
J., Bulzan, D., Corr, C. A., Crosbie, E., Jurkat, T., Martin, R., Riddick,
D., Shook, M., Slover, G., Voigt, C., White, R., Winstead, E., Yasky, R.,
Ziemba, L. D., Brown, A., Schlager, H., and Anderson, B. E.: Biofuel
blending reduces particle emissions from aircraft engines at cruise
conditions, Nature, 543, 411–415, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21420" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21420</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Moteki, N. and Kondo, Y.: Dependence of Laser-Induced Incandescence on
Physical Properties of Black Carbon Aerosols: Measurements and Theoretical
Interpretation, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 44, 663–675, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2010.484450" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2010.484450</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Nault, B. A., Campuzano-Jost, P., Day, D. A., Schroder, J. C., Anderson, B., Beyersdorf, A. J., Blake, D. R., Brune, W. H., Choi, Y., Corr, C. A., de Gouw, J. A., Dibb, J., DiGangi, J. P., Diskin, G. S., Fried, A., Huey, L. G., Kim, M. J., Knote, C. J., Lamb, K. D., Lee, T., Park, T., Pusede, S. E., Scheuer, E., Thornhill, K. L., Woo, J.-H., and Jimenez, J. L.: Secondary organic aerosol production from local emissions dominates the organic aerosol budget over Seoul, South Korea, during KORUS-AQ, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 17769–17800, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17769-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17769-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Pokhrel, R. P., Wagner, N. L., Langridge, J. M., Lack, D. A., Jayarathne, T., Stone, E. A., Stockwell, C. E., Yokelson, R. J., and Murphy, S. M.: Parameterization of single-scattering albedo (SSA) and absorption Ångström exponent (AAE) with EC&thinsp;/&thinsp;OC for aerosol emissions from biomass burning, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 9549–9561, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-9549-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-9549-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Salcedo, D., Onasch, T. B., Dzepina, K., Canagaratna, M. R., Zhang, Q., Huffman, J. A., DeCarlo, P. F., Jayne, J. T., Mortimer, P., Worsnop, D. R., Kolb, C. E., Johnson, K. S., Zuberi, B., Marr, L. C., Volkamer, R., Molina, L. T., Molina, M. J., Cardenas, B., Bernabé, R. M., Márquez, C., Gaffney, J. S., Marley, N. A., Laskin, A., Shutthanandan, V., Xie, Y., Brune, W., Lesher, R., Shirley, T., and Jimenez, J. L.: Characterization of ambient aerosols in Mexico City during the MCMA-2003 campaign with Aerosol Mass Spectrometry: results from the CENICA Supersite, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 925–946, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-925-2006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-925-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Saleh, R., Robinson, E. S., Tkacik, D. S., Ahern, A. T., Liu, S., Aiken, A.
C., Sullivan, R. C., Presto, A. A., Dubey, M. K., Yokelson, R. J., Donahue,
N. M., and Robinson, A. L.: Brownness of organics in aerosols from biomass
burning linked to their black carbon content, Nat. Geosci., 7, 647–650,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2220" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2220</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Sawamura, P., Moore, R. H., Burton, S. P., Chemyakin, E., Müller, D., Kolgotin, A., Ferrare, R. A., Hostetler, C. A., Ziemba, L. D., Beyersdorf, A. J., and Anderson, B. E.: HSRL-2 aerosol optical measurements and microphysical retrievals vs. airborne in situ measurements during DISCOVER-AQ 2013: an intercomparison study, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 7229–7243, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-7229-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-7229-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Selimovic, V., Yokelson, R. J., McMeeking, G. R., and Coefield, S.: In situ measurements of trace gases, PM, and aerosol optical properties during the 2017 NW US wildfire smoke event, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 3905–3926, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-3905-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-3905-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Shepherd, R. H., King, M. D., Marks, A. A., Brough, N., and Ward, A. D.: Determination of the refractive index of insoluble organic extracts from atmospheric aerosol over the visible wavelength range using optical tweezers, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 5235–5252, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-5235-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-5235-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Shingler, T., Crosbie, E., Ortega, A., Shiraiwa, M., Zuend, A., Beyersdorf,
A., Ziemba, L., Anderson, B., Thornhill, L., Perring, A. E., Schwarz, J. P.,
Campazano-Jost, P., Day, D. A., Jimenez, J. L., Hair, J. W., Mikoviny, T.,
Wisthaler, A., and Sorooshian, A.: Airborne characterization of subsaturated
aerosol hygroscopicity and dry refractive index from the surface to 6.5&thinsp;km
during the SEAC4RS campaign, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
121, 4188–4210, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024498" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024498</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Slowik, J. G., Stainken, K., Davidovits, P., Williams, L. R., Jayne, J. T.,
Kolb, C. E., Worsnop, D. R., Rudich, Y., DeCarlo, P. F., and Jimenez, J. L.:
Particle Morphology and Density Characterization by Combined Mobility and
Aerodynamic Diameter Measurements. Part 2: Application to
Combustion-Generated Soot Aerosols as a Function of Fuel Equivalence Ratio,
Aerosol Sci. Tech., 38, 1206–1222, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290903916" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290903916</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Sumlin, B. J., Heinson, Y. W., Shetty, N., Pandey, A., Pattison, R. S.,
Baker, S., Hao, W. M., and Chakrabarty, R. K.: UV–Vis–IR spectral complex
refractive indices and optical properties of brown carbon aerosol from
biomass burning, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Ra., 206, 392–398, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2017.12.009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2017.12.009</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Tang, I. N. and Munkelwitz, H. R.: Simultaneous Determination of Refractive
Index and Density of an Evaporating Aqueous Solution Droplet,
Aerosol Sci. Tech., 15, 201–207, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829108959527" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829108959527</a>, 1991.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Tang, I. N. and Munkelwitz, H. R.: Water activities, densities, and
refractive indices of aqueous sulfates and sodium nitrate droplets of
atmospheric importance, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 99,
18801–18808, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/94JD01345" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/94JD01345</a>, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Toon, O. B., Pollack, J. B., and Khare, B. N.: The optical constants of
several atmospheric aerosol species: Ammonium sulfate, aluminum oxide, and
sodium chloride, J. Geophys. Res., 81, 5733–5748,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JC081i033p05733" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/JC081i033p05733</a>, 1976.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
TSI: Laser Aerosol Spectrometer Model 3340: Operation and Service Manual,
Revision G, TSI, Incorporated, Shoreview, MN, USA, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, J., Pikridas, M., Spielman, S. R., and Pinterich, T.: A fast
integrated mobility spectrometer for rapid measurement of sub-micrometer
aerosol size distribution, Part I: Design and model evaluation,
J. Aerosol Sci., 108, 44–55, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.02.012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.02.012</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, Y., Pinterich, T., and Wang, J.: Rapid measurement of sub-micrometer
aerosol size distribution using a fast integrated mobility spectrometer,
J. Aerosol Sci., 121, 12–20, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2018.03.006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2018.03.006</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Wiggins, E. B., Soja, A. J., Gargulinski, E., Halliday, H. S., Pierce, R.
B., Schmidt, C. C., Nowak, J. B., DiGangi, J. P., Diskin, G. S., Katich, J.
M., Perring, A. E., Schwarz, J. P., Anderson, B. E., Chen, G., Crosbie, E.
C., Jordan, C., Robinson, C. E., Sanchez, K. J., Shingler, T. J., Shook, M.,
Thornhill, K. L., Winstead, E. L., Ziemba, L. D., and Moore, R. H.: High
Temporal Resolution Satellite Observations of Fire Radiative Power Reveal
Link Between Fire Behavior and Aerosol and Gas Emissions,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL090707, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090707" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090707</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Zimmerman, S., Moore, R., Anderson, B., Beyersdorf, A., Corr, C., Shook, M.,
Thornhill, K., Winstead, E., and Ziemba, L.: Evaluation of Combined
Electrical Mobility and Optical Sizing Techniques for Deriving Aerosol
Refractive Index, American Association for Aerosol Research (AAAR) Annual
Meeting, 12–16 October 2015, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
