<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">AMT</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Atmospheric Measurement Techniques</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">AMT</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Meas. Tech.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1867-8548</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/amt-14-819-2021</article-id><title-group><article-title>Detailed characterization of the CAPS single-scattering albedo monitor (CAPS PMssa) as a field-deployable instrument for measuring aerosol light
absorption with the extinction-minus-scattering method</article-title><alt-title>Detailed characterization of the CAPS single-scattering albedo monitor (CAPS PMssa)</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Detailed characterization of the CAPS single-scattering albedo monitor (CAPS PMssa)}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{R. L. Modini et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Modini</surname><given-names>Rob L.</given-names></name>
          <email>robin.modini@psi.ch</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2982-1369</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Corbin</surname><given-names>Joel C.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2584-9137</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Brem</surname><given-names>Benjamin T.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6211-2815</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff6">
          <name><surname>Irwin</surname><given-names>Martin</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6205-4600</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Bertò</surname><given-names>Michele</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9182-6427</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Pileci</surname><given-names>Rosaria E.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4104-4718</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Fetfatzis</surname><given-names>Prodromos</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9871-0259</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Eleftheriadis</surname><given-names>Kostas</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2265-4905</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Henzing</surname><given-names>Bas</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6456-8189</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Moerman</surname><given-names>Marcel M.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>Fengshan</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Müller</surname><given-names>Thomas</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Gysel-Beer</surname><given-names>Martin</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7453-1264</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Laboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI),
5232 Villigen PSI, Switzerland</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Metrology Research Centre, National Research Council Canada, 1200
Montreal Road, Ottawa K1A 0R6, Canada</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Institute of Nuclear and Radiological Science &amp; Technology, Energy
&amp; Safety N.C.S.R. ”Demokritos”, Attiki, Greece</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO),
Princetonlaan 6, 3584 Utrecht, the Netherlands</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research (TROPOS), Permoserstrasse
15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>a</label><institution>now at: Catalytic Instruments GmbH, Zellerhornstrasse 7, 83026 Rosenheim,
Germany</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Rob L. Modini (robin.modini@psi.ch)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>3</day><month>February</month><year>2021</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>14</volume>
      <issue>2</issue>
      <fpage>819</fpage><lpage>851</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>17</day><month>July</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>6</day><month>August</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>8</day><month>December</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>9</day><month>December</month><year>2020</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2021 Rob L. Modini 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/14/819/2021/amt-14-819-2021.html">This article is available from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/819/2021/amt-14-819-2021.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/819/2021/amt-14-819-2021.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/819/2021/amt-14-819-2021.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e224">The CAPS PMssa monitor is a recently commercialized instrument designed to measure aerosol single-scattering albedo (SSA) with high accuracy (Onasch et al., 2015). The underlying extinction and
scattering coefficient measurements made by the instrument also allow
calculation of aerosol absorption coefficients via the
extinction-minus-scattering (EMS) method. Care must be taken with EMS
measurements due to the occurrence of large subtractive error amplification,
especially for the predominantly scattering aerosols that are typically
found in the ambient atmosphere. Practically this means that although the
CAPS PMssa can measure scattering and extinction coefficients with high
accuracy (errors on the order of 1 %–10 %), the corresponding errors in
EMS-derived absorption range from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % to greater than
100 %. Therefore, we examine the individual error sources in detail with
the goal of constraining these as tightly as possible.</p>
    <p id="d1e237">Our main focus is on the correction of the scattered light truncation effect
(i.e., accounting for the near-forward and near-backward scattered light that is undetectable by the instrument), which we show to be the main source of
underlying error in atmospheric applications. We introduce a new, modular
framework for performing the truncation correction calculation that enables
the consideration of additional physical processes such as reflection from
the instrument's glass sampling tube, which was neglected in an earlier
truncation model. We validate the truncation calculations against
comprehensive laboratory measurements. It is demonstrated that the process
of glass tube reflection must be considered in the truncation calculation,
but that uncertainty still remains regarding the effective length of the
optical cavity. Another important source of uncertainty is the cross-calibration constant that quantitatively links the scattering coefficient
measured by the instrument to its extinction coefficient. We present
measurements of this constant over a period of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> months that
demonstrate that the uncertainty in this parameter is very well constrained
for some instrument units (2 %–3 %) but higher for others.</p>
    <p id="d1e250">We then use two example field datasets to demonstrate and summarize the
potential and the limitations of using the CAPS PMssa for measuring
absorption. The first example uses mobile measurements on a highway road to
highlight the excellent responsiveness and sensitivity of the instrument,
which enables much higher time resolution measurements of relative
absorption than is possible with filter-based instruments. The second
example from a stationary field<?pagebreak page820?> site (Cabauw, the Netherlands) demonstrates
how truncation-related uncertainties can lead to large biases in EMS-derived
absolute absorption coefficients. Nevertheless, we use a subset of fine-mode-dominated aerosols from the dataset to show that under certain conditions
and despite the remaining truncation uncertainties, the CAPS PMssa can still
provide consistent EMS-derived absorption measurements, even for atmospheric
aerosols with high SSA. Finally, we present a detailed list of
recommendations for future studies that use the CAPS PMssa to measure
absorption with the EMS method. These recommendations could also be followed
to obtain accurate measurements (i.e., errors less than 5 %–10 %) of SSA and scattering and extinction coefficients with the instrument.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

      <?xmltex \hack{\allowdisplaybreaks}?>
<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e264">Light-absorbing aerosols such as black carbon (BC; Bond et al., 2013), brown carbon (BrC; Laskin et al., 2015), tar balls (Corbin and Gysel-Beer, 2019),
anthropogenic iron oxide (Moteki et al., 2017), and mineral dust (Sokolik
and Toon, 1999) redistribute radiant energy in the Earth's atmosphere as
heat. This perturbs the Earth's radiative balance directly (Haywood and
Shine, 1995) and semi-directly through alteration of atmospheric circulation and cloud cover (Koch and Del Genio, 2010). Currently, large
discrepancies exist between global climate model simulations of
column-integrated aerosol absorption (absorbing aerosol optical depth, AAOD)
and Sun photometer measurements of the same quantity taken within the AERONET network (Bond et al., 2013; Samset et al., 2018). The uncertainty
resulting from this discrepancy feeds into radiative forcing estimates for
absorbing aerosols, contributing to the large and stubborn uncertainty in
quantitative estimates of aerosol–radiation climate effects (Myhre et al., 2013). One element that is required to improve this situation and validate
both the model simulations and Sun photometer measurements is accurate and widespread measurements of atmospheric aerosol absorption coefficients (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). This activity requires sensitive, field-deployable, and robust in
situ aerosol instrumentation for measuring absorption (Cappa et al., 2016;
Lack et al., 2014; Moosmüller et al., 2009).</p>
      <p id="d1e278">Traditionally, aerosol light absorption has been derived by measuring the
attenuation of light transmitted through aerosol samples deposited on filter
substrates (e.g., Rosen et al., 1978). A number of online (i.e., continuously measuring), field-deployable instruments have been developed based on this
principle, including the aethalometer (Hansen et al., 1984), the particle
soot absorption photometer (PSAP; Bond et al., 1999), and the continuous
light absorption photometer (CLAP; Ogren et al., 2017). An important further
development of this class of instruments is the multi-angle absorption
photometer (MAAP; Petzold and Schönlinner, 2004), which additionally
measures the light backscattered from aerosol-laden filter samples at two
separate angles and processes the resulting measurements with a simplified
radiative transfer model in order to improve the accuracy of the retrieved
aerosol absorption coefficients. Collectively, these instruments are
referred to as “filter-based absorption photometers”.</p>
      <p id="d1e281">While the popularity of filter-based absorption photometers has provided
critical insights into the optical properties of atmospheric aerosols over
the last decades, the limitations of the technique are becoming more
problematic as research efforts progress even further. Filter-based light
absorption measurements are subject to large positive artifacts due to the effects of multiple scattering from the filter material and the deposited
particles, and they are sensitive to aerosol loading, humidity, and aerosol single-scattering albedo, SSA (Moosmüller et al., 2009). An additional concern is that the commercial production of some important filter-based
instruments has recently been discontinued (e.g., the PSAP by Radiance Research and the MAAP by Thermo Fisher Scientific).</p>
      <p id="d1e284">Motivated by the limitations in the filter-based techniques, instrumentation
development efforts have recently focused on methods for measuring light
absorption by aerosols in their natural, suspended state. These techniques
include photoacoustic spectroscopy (Arnott et al., 1999; Lack et al., 2006),
photo-thermal interferometry (Moosmüller and Arnott, 1996; Sedlacek,
2006), and extinction-minus-scattering (EMS) methods. Here we focus on the
EMS method. The EMS method is comprised of two separate underlying
measurements: one of the aerosol extinction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and one of the
aerosol scattering coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The aerosol absorption
coefficient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is then obtained by subtracting <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>:</p>
      <p id="d1e343"><disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M9" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e371">Traditionally, EMS measurements have been performed by two separate
instruments (e.g., an integrating nephelometer for aerosol scattering and a separate extinction monitor). Additionally, the use of EMS measurements has
mostly been limited to the laboratory where high absorption signals are
easily achievable, and artifacts (e.g., due to the scattered light truncation effect) can be avoided. In such a laboratory setting, EMS
measurements are considered a primary standard for measuring aerosol absorption thanks to the traceability of the underlying <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements (e.g., Bond et al., 1999; Schnaiter et al., 2003; Virkkula et al., 2005).</p>
      <p id="d1e396">The continued development of sensitive techniques for measuring <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
using multi-pass optical cavities (e.g., cavity ring-down spectroscopy, Moosmüller et al., 2005, and cavity-attenuated phase-shift spectroscopy, CAPS, Kebabian et al., 2007) has created the possibility of extending
application of<?pagebreak page821?> the EMS technique more broadly to different types of
atmospheric and/or test bench (i.e., emissions) measurements. This endeavor
poses several challenges: (i) subtractive error amplification in EMS-derived
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can become very large when <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is close to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (i.e., as
SSA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mo>→</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1), which occurs very commonly throughout the Earth's atmosphere
(Dubovik et al., 2002), (ii) artifacts such as the scattered light truncation effect in integrating nephelometer measurements of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are generally
unavoidable and more difficult to quantify for ambient aerosols (which are
typically complex mixtures of particles of varying size, composition, and morphology), (iii) it is more difficult to ensure thorough and regular
instrument calibrations in a field vs. a laboratory setting, and (iv) it is usually more difficult to control sampling arrangements in the field to
ensure that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are measured under the same (or at least
well-known) environmental conditions.</p>
      <p id="d1e484">Despite these challenges, the possibility of performing EMS measurements of
atmospheric aerosol absorption has recently been boosted by the development
and commercialization of the cavity-attenuated phase-shift SSA monitor (CAPS PMssa) by Aerodyne Research Inc. (Billerica, MA, USA; Onasch et al., 2015).
The CAPS PMssa monitor combines measurements of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in a
single instrument and sample volume, following in the tradition of earlier
combined extinction-scattering instruments (Gerber, 1979; Sanford et al.,
2008; Strawa et al., 2003; Thompson et al., 2008). Its direct precursor
instrument – the Aerodyne CAPS extinction monitor (CAPS PMex) – uses the
CAPS technique to measure <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values with high sensitivity in a compact
optical cavity and overall instrument unit (Massoli et al., 2010; Petzold et
al., 2013). The CAPS PMssa is based on the same optical cavity but additionally includes an integrating sphere reciprocal nephelometer around
the cavity for measurement of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e531">The CAPS PMssa was originally designed to measure SSA (i.e., the ratio of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), a quantity which is not subject to the same
subtractive errors as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. However, its design addresses two of the key
challenges of atmospheric EMS measurements that were listed in the paragraph
above, which makes it an attractive candidate for performing such
measurements. Specifically, by simultaneously measuring <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the same volume of air, there is no need to account for
possible differences in environmental conditions or sampling losses that
could affect these two coefficients. Additionally, this feature allows the
cross-calibration of one coefficient against the other using white test aerosols (non-absorbing, i.e., where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), which
facilitates the development of relatively simple field calibration
procedures (in practice, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is cross-calibrated against <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the CAPS PMssa). Nevertheless, great care must still be taken when
performing EMS measurements with the CAPS PMssa to ensure that errors in the
underlying <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements are minimized and that very
large subtractive error amplification is avoided. This essentially reduces
down to the following problem: errors that may be acceptable if one is
interested in measuring <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, or SSA (say on the order of 5 %–10 %) are substantially magnified – perhaps to over 100 %, as we will show below – when using the very same measurements to derive <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.
Therefore, the user must be concerned about errors on the order of only a
few percent if they wish to use the CAPS PMssa to reliably measure
atmospheric aerosol absorption coefficients.</p>
      <p id="d1e686">One of the key sources of uncertainty that must be considered for the CAPS
PMssa (and integrating nephelometry in general) is the scattered light
truncation effect (e.g., Moosmüller and Arnott, 2003; Varma et al., 2003). Integrating nephelometers seek to detect light scattered in all
possible directions. In reality, a fraction of near-forward and
near-backward scattered light is always lost due to unavoidable physical
design limitations. As a result, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements are biased low and
need to be corrected. The required correction factor depends on a particular
instrument's geometry as well as the angular distribution of light scattered from an aerosol sample, which is a function of the optical
wavelength and the size distribution, composition, mixing state, and morphology of the particles in that sample.</p>
      <p id="d1e701">Onasch et al. (2015) presented a simple model for calculating truncation
correction factors for the CAPS PMssa based on Mie theory calculations with
inputted particle size distributions. However, this model does not consider
an important physical process that serves to increase scattered light
truncation: reflection of scattered light from the inner surface of the
glass sampling tube within the integrating nephelometer. Liu et al. (2018)
developed a more sophisticated truncation model based on solution of the
radiative transfer equation (RTE) configured specifically to the PMssa
optical system. As well as allowing for the treatment of non-spherical
particles (which is not possible with Mie theory), the RTE approach also
allows for the treatment of additional physical processes (e.g., multiple scattering from the aerosol and glass tube reflection). CAPS PMssa
truncation values calculated with these models have so far been validated
against only a limited dataset of experimental measurements (Onasch et al.,
2015). Furthermore, there is a lack of systematic analyses that aim to
determine the sensitivity of EMS-derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values to changes in
calculated truncation (e.g., for ambient aerosol samples).</p>
      <p id="d1e715">Despite the many unresolved uncertainties, the CAPS PMssa has already been
used as an instrument for measuring <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in a number of different
ambient field campaigns (Chen et al., 2018; Han et al., 2017; Xie et al.,
2019), emissions testing experiments (Corbin et al., 2018; Zhai et al.,
2017), and soot characterization experiments (Dastanpour et al., 2017;
Forestieri et al., 2018; Perim de Faria et al., 2019).</p>
      <p id="d1e729">In this study, we present a compilation of theoretical calculations, novel
laboratory measurements, and example field applications that all serve a
common purpose: to improve the truncation correction approach and to
determine the extent to which the CAPS PMssa can be used to measure aerosol
absorption coefficients via the EMS method.</p>
      <?pagebreak page822?><p id="d1e732">In Sect. 2 we present a theoretical description of the instrument, including
the introduction of a new truncation model that includes the process of
glass tube reflection and is suitable for application to large field
datasets. This section culminates in the presentation of a detailed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> error model, which is used to demonstrate why it is so critical to
constrain errors in the truncation calculations and instrument cross-calibration constant. This finding motivates the experimental work described
in the remainder of the paper. Section 3 details the experimental methods
used. Section 4 then presents some regular measurements of the CAPS PMssa
cross-calibration constant in order to assess its precision and stability. In Sect. 5 we compare the results of novel and comprehensive laboratory
truncation measurements with calculated values from a range of different
truncation models. Synthesizing all of these issues together, Sect. 6 then
presents two example field datasets that demonstrate both the potential and
the limitations of using the CAPS PMssa to measure atmospheric aerosol
absorption. Finally, in the concluding Sect. 7 we present a list of
recommendations for future CAPS PMssa studies.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Theoretical description of the CAPS PMssa monitor</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>General introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e761">The CAPS PMssa monitor is described in detail previously in the original
technical paper by Onasch et al. (2015). A schematic diagram of the
instrument is shown in Fig. 1. Briefly, the instrument consists of an
optical cavity formed by two high-reflectivity mirrors (reflectivity <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.9998</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), creating a long effective optical path length
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–2 km). Aerosol samples are drawn continuously through
this cavity at a flow rate of 0.85 litres per minute (light blue arrows in
Fig. 1) with no size selection performed at the instrument inlet, meaning
that the samples generally contain both sub- and super-micrometer particles. Smaller, particle-free purge flows of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.025</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> litres per
minute are pushed continuously over the high-reflectivity mirrors to prevent their contamination (green arrows in Fig. 1). The purge and sample flows are
generated from the same double-headed membrane pump.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e796">Schematic diagram of the CAPS PMssa monitor with relevant
components and variables highlighted. A glass tube encapsulates the aerosol
sample to be measured. A light-emitting diode (LED) delivers a square-wave modulated light signal as input to the optical cavity. The phase shift of
the output signal from the cavity relative to the input signal is measured
by a vacuum photodiode: this is the extinction channel of the instrument.
Light scattered from the aerosol sample is collected by the integrating
sphere and measured with a photomultiplier tube (PMT): this is the
scattering channel of the instrument. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
are the two truncation angles for light scattered from a particle at
position <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> along the instrument axis (without considering reflection from the
glass tube).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/819/2021/amt-14-819-2021-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e834">The input light source to the cavity is provided by a single light-emitting diode (LED). Units are available from the manufacturer Aerodyne Research,
Inc. with LEDs centred at wavelengths of 450, 530, 630, 660, and 780 nm. The intensity of the LED input light is square-wave modulated (typically at 17 kHZ), and the intensity of light leaking through one mirror is monitored by
a vacuum photodiode or, in the case of the 780 nm unit, a photomultiplier
tube (PMT). The intensity of the light circulating in the cavity increases
exponentially during the LED on-phase and decreases exponentially during the
LED off-phase, with a timescale dependent on the reflectivity of the mirrors
and optical loss in the cell (Lewis et al., 2004). The introduction of a
scattering or absorbing species to the cell enhances this optical loss,
resulting in a shorter optical lifetime in the cavity and a phase shift of
the output signal relative to the input signal. This phase shift is measured
by the vacuum photodiode using a quadrature signal integration method
(Kebabian et al., 2007). This is the technique for measuring extinction
coefficients known as cavity-attenuated phase-shift spectroscopy (CAPS), and its application in the CAPS PMssa is referred to as the “extinction channel”
of the instrument.</p>
      <p id="d1e838">The second light detector in the instrument is a PMT that is used to measure
the integrated aerosol scattering coefficient (Fig. 1). It is referred to as
the “scattering channel” of the instrument. The PMT is placed on the
integrating sphere that surrounds the center of the optical cavity. The integrating sphere has an inner diameter of 10 cm. The inside of the
integrating sphere is coated white to form a Lambertian reflector
(reflectivity <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.98), which functions to maximize the amount of scattered
light detected by the PMT and to minimize any bias between light collected
from different scattering angles. Onasch et al. (2015) calculated that the
variation in the angular sensitivity of the sphere as a function of
scattering angle is less than 1 %. The integrating sphere does not contain
a baffle as described by Onasch et al. (2015). A glass tube with an inner diameter of 1 cm passes through the center of the integrating sphere in
order to encapsulate the aerosol flow along the central axis of the optical
cavity.</p>
      <p id="d1e848">In this study we define the central axis of the optical cavity as the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> dimension and the center of the integrating sphere as being at position <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm. A particle lying along the central <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis scatters light in polar directions at scattering angles <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> defined with respect to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis (two limiting examples for forward- (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and back-scattered
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) light are shown in Fig. 1) and azimuthal directions at scattering angles <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">φ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (not shown in Fig. 1).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Data processing and important correction and calibration factors</title>
      <p id="d1e929">The data processing chain applied by the CAPS PMssa instrument firmware to
calculate aerosol extinction and scattering coefficients from the measured
photodiode and PMT signals is displayed in Fig. 2 (Onasch et al., 2015). The
instrument has two modes of operation where data are collected: sample and
baseline measurements. The sample and baseline measurements are achieved by
a controlled three-way valve that directs the sampled air either directly
into the optical cavity or first through a filter that removes all
particles. The instrument firmware allows the baseline measurements to be
repeated automatically at a frequency and duration set by the user.
Typically during field operation baseline measurements are performed for 1 min every 5 or 10 min.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e934">Data processing chain for the extinction and scattering channels
of the CAPS PMssa. Blue boxes indicate quantities that are measured during
the periodic “baseline” mode of operation of the instrument. Hexagonal
containers indicate fixed constants, and rounded rectangular containers represent variable quantities.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/819/2021/amt-14-819-2021-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page824?><p id="d1e943">In the extinction channel, the sample and baseline measurements are first
treated by subtracting out a constant factor that accounts for extinction
due to Rayleigh light scattering from the aerosol carrier gas. The
subtraction term is corrected using temperature and pressure measurements
taken by the instrument to account for possible variations in these
quantities between sample and baseline periods.</p>
      <p id="d1e947">Full treatment of the PMT scattering signals is given by Onasch et al. (2015). The scattering signals are counted during the LED off-phase when
only highly collimated light is circulating in the cavity in order to
minimize the contribution of light scattered from interior surfaces of the
instrument. Consequently, the average intensity of circulating light during
the LED off-phase must be accounted for in the scattering calculation, as
illustrated by the dot-dashed lines in Fig. 2 and described in detail in
Onasch et al. (2015).</p>
      <p id="d1e950">Following these initial data treatment steps, uncorrected aerosol extinction
and uncalibrated scattering coefficients (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">uncorr</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">uncalib</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively) are obtained by taking the difference
between the sample-mode coefficient measurements (which we term
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sample</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sample</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and the interpolated baseline-mode
coefficient measurements (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). By
default, the instrument firmware uses a step function to interpolate the
baseline values between each baseline period (i.e., the mean value of a
baseline period is assumed to stay constant until it is replaced by the mean
value of the next baseline period). However, the data output files from the
instrument also provide sufficient information for the user to apply custom
methods for calculating the interpolated coefficients <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (e.g., linear or cubic spline interpolation; Pfeifer et al., 2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e1094">Following the sample-baseline difference calculations, one extinction
correction factor (the geometry correction factor, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and two
scattering correction factors (cross-calibration, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and truncation factors, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) are multiplicatively applied to the respective signals
in order to obtain the calibrated and corrected aerosol coefficients
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> factors are applied
automatically by the instrument firmware, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> must be applied
manually by the user in post-processing. All three correction factors are
discussed in detail in the sections below. The aerosol absorption
coefficient is then obtained as</p>
      <p id="d1e1162"><disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M72" display="block"><mml:mtable columnspacing="1em" class="split" rowspacing="0.2ex" displaystyle="true" columnalign="right left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sample</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sample</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS1">
  <label>2.2.1</label><?xmltex \opttitle{Geometry correction factor ($\alpha$)}?><title>Geometry correction factor (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>)</title>
      <p id="d1e1286">The purge flows that protect the high-reflectivity mirrors in the CAPS PMssa shorten the effective optical path length of the cavity and may slightly
dilute the instrument sample flow at the cavity inlet. Therefore, a
correction factor must be applied to the measured extinction coefficients in
order to account for these changes (Massoli et al., 2010; Onasch et al.,
2015; Petzold et al., 2013). We refer to this correction factor as the
geometry correction factor, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, which can be determined by external
calibration, i.e., by comparing CAPS PMssa measurements against
independently measured or calculated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (e.g., Mie-calculated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values for spherical, monodisperse test aerosols, Petzold et al.,
2013, or measured <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values for non-absorbing test aerosols obtained with a reference nephelometer, Pfeifer et al., 2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e1329">Onasch et al. (2015) applied the Mie calculation approach to measurements of
polystyrene latex (PSL) spheres of varying diameter to determine an
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value of 0.73 for a CAPS PMssa unit operating at 630 nm. This is
lower than the general value of 0.79 quoted by Onasch et al. (2015) for CAPS
PMex monitors, which they note is expected due to small differences in the
cavity geometries. The CAPS PMssa units used in this study (Table 2)
participated in European Center for Aerosol Calibration (ECAC;
<uri>http://www.actris-ecac.eu/</uri>, last access: 29 January 2021) workshops (CAPS630b in August 2016 and CAPS450, CAPS630a, and CAPS780 in January 2017) where their geometry correction factors
were determined against reference instrumentation (CAPS PMex, nephelometer)
using ammonium sulfate test aerosols. The units were determined to have <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values of 0.78 (CAPS450), 0.71 (CAPS630a), 0.7 to 0.73 (CAPS630b),
and 0.78 (CAPS780). Therefore, it appears that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is
instrument-unit-dependent. The stability of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> over time is still an
open question. However, regular and frequent measurements of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in
CAPS PMex monitors performed at the ECAC suggests that it does not drift by
more than 3 % over the period of a year. By default, the CAPS PMssa
firmware automatically applies an <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> factor of 0.73 to calculate
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 2).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Table}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e1392">Summary and description of uncertainties in the individual
parameters comprising the error model described in Sect. 2.3. The precision
column represents uncertainty due to the limited precision with which a
particular parameter can be determined during calibration or measurement,
and the drift column represents uncertainty due to possible drift of a
parameter between available measurements. Estimated values are taken from
previous studies or this study as indicated. The estimated values with units
of Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" 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> correspond to absolute errors, and those with percentages
relative errors.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="justify" colwidth="1.5cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="justify" colwidth="2.5cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="justify" colwidth="2.7cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="justify" colwidth="5cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="justify" colwidth="2cm"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Symbol</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Precision</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Drift (stability- <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>based uncertainty)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Description</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">References</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sample<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>extinction<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>coefficient</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sample</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1 Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" 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></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">n/a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Conservative estimate of short-term, random noise.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Onasch et al.<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(2015)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Baseline extinction coefficient</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.35 Mm<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></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.3 Mm<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> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>over 10 min<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(CAPS630b)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Values estimated from the Cabauw field dataset (Fig. S8).</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">This study</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sample scattering coefficient</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sample</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1 Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" 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></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">n/a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Conservative estimate of short-term, random noise.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Onasch et al.<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(2015)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Baseline scattering coefficient</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.66 Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" 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></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.1 Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" 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><?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>over 10 mins<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(CAPS630b)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Values estimated from the Cabauw field dataset (Fig. S8).</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">This study</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Geometry correction factor</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3 % over 1 year</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Drift value determined from regular CAPS PMex measurements at the European Center for Aerosol Calibration (ECAC; <uri>http://www.actris-ecac.eu/</uri>, 29 January 2021) as part of the EMPIR BC project.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Petzold et al.<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(2013)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Scattering cross-<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>calibration factor</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2 % (CAPS450)<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>2 % (CAPS630a)<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>2 % (CAPS630b)<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>6 % (CAPS780)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">n/a (CAPS450)<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>2 % (CAPS630a)<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>2.5 % (CAPS630b)<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>8 % (CAPS780)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Values estimated from the Payerne (Fig. 5) and Cabauw (Sect. 6.2.2) field datasets.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">This study</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Truncation correction factor</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4 % for fine-mode-<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>dominated aerosol<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>9 % for coarse-<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>mode-containing<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>aerosol</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">n/a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Values derived from the sensitivity analysis discussed in Sect. 6.2.3.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">This study</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Table}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1799">CAPS PMssa instrument units that were used in the present study.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{0.95}[0.95]?><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Unit ID</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Wavelength</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Institute</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Serial</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Geometry</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">number</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">correction</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">factor (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CAPS450</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">450</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">PSI</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">314003</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.78</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CAPS630a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">630</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">PSI</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">313004</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.71</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CAPS630b</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">630</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Demokritos</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">313003</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.7–0.73</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CAPS780</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">780</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">PSI</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">314002</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.78</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS2">
  <label>2.2.2</label><?xmltex \opttitle{Scattering cross-calibration factor ($\beta)$}?><title>Scattering cross-calibration factor (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></title>
      <p id="d1e1969">The scattering cross-calibration factor (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) is used to relate the PMT-measured scattering signal of the CAPS PMssa to an absolute aerosol
scattering coefficient. The value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> can be determined by cross-calibrating the uncalibrated aerosol scattering coefficient
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">uncalib</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> against <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measured by the extinction channel
(Onasch et al., 2015). This approach is possible because the scattering and
extinction coefficients are measured simultaneously for the same air sample,
and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measured using the CAPS method is effectively “calibration
free” (apart from the geometry correction factor, as discussed in Sect. 2.2.1, as well as potential non-linearities at high baseline losses).
Amongst other factors, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> depends on the PMT detector response, which
can vary over time. Therefore, regular cross-calibrations should be performed.</p>
      <p id="d1e2035">Non-absorbing test samples are required to perform the cross-calibration and to determine a value for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (i.e., purely scattering samples for which
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, or SSA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1). In principle, the calibration can be
performed with gases or aerosol particles. In practice, we performed all
calibrations in the present study with particles because readily available
calibration gases such as CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> span a much smaller range in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
than is achievable with aerosols of different concentrations, additional
corrections are required to account for the<?pagebreak page825?> changes in optical path length
and dilution with the purge flows for different gases (see Sect. 2.2.1), and
we have observed that the instrument can take a long time (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> hours) to adjust and stabilize when filled with different gases (as expected
due to the low flows and large filter areas in the purge flow setup).</p>
      <p id="d1e2098">When using the particle-based calibration method, non-absorbing aerosol
particles with size parameters <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in the Rayleigh light-scattering regime should be used to ensure well-defined scattered light truncation, since the
scattering-phase function is independent of particle size in the Rayleigh regime. We term cross-calibration constants derived in this specific manner
as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The size parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> relates the aerosol particle
diameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" 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> to the wavelength of light <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> through the expression
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><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:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The Rayleigh regime is defined by the
condition <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" 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>. In practice, there is a trade-off between selecting
particle sizes that are small enough to lie within or near the Rayleigh
regime limit but large enough to generate scattering and extinction signals
with sufficiently high signal-to-noise ratios. This means particles<?pagebreak page826?> with
diameter less than approximately 150 nm should be used to determine <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the 450 nm CAPS PMssa, while slightly larger particles
(e.g., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">200</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm) can be used with 630 or 780 nm CAPS PMssa instruments.</p>
      <p id="d1e2201">Formally, the Rayleigh-regime, particle-based cross-calibration approach can be expressed as</p>
      <p id="d1e2204"><disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M122" display="block"><mml:mtable columnspacing="1em" rowspacing="0.2ex" class="split" displaystyle="true" columnalign="right left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">uncalib</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">non</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">non</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">uncalib</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">non</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">uncorr</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">non</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">non</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">uncalib</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">non</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
are the extinction and uncalibrated scattering coefficients, respectively,
for a population of non-absorbing particles with size parameters in the
Rayleigh regime. The right-hand side of Eq. (3) is obtained by substitution
of the relationship <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">uncorr</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> into the left-hand side ratio. From this substitution, it
can be seen that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, generally) is directly
proportional to the geometry correction factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is required
to measure <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> accurately as discussed in Sect. 2.2.1 (the remaining
fraction of the cross-calibration constant is termed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to distinguish it from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Thus, Eq. (3) demonstrates
how the cross-calibration approach quantitatively links <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the CAPS PMssa. Following application of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
we refer to the calibrated aerosol scattering coefficient corrected for the
truncation of Rayleigh scattered light as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This is to
recognize the fact that the cross-calibration approach represented by Eq. (3) implicitly corrects for the truncation of light scattered from the calibration aerosol, which has been chosen specifically to have the
well-defined phase function corresponding to Rayleigh light scattering.</p>
      <p id="d1e2548">Onasch et al. (2015) demonstrated that the linearity shown by Eq. (3) is valid up to extinction coefficients of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which
is higher than typical ambient aerosol extinction coefficients, excluding
perhaps coefficients in heavily polluted urban environments. The precise
limit of linearity should be examined for individual instrument units if it
is relevant for a particular experiment. For very high aerosol loadings
above the limit of linearity the CAPS PMssa cross-calibration approach can still be used. However, this requires the addition of empirically derived higher-order terms in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">non</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to Eq. (3). In addition,
the potential occurrence of multiple scattering effects needs to be
considered at very high aerosol loadings (Wind and Szymanski, 2002).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS3">
  <label>2.2.3</label><?xmltex \opttitle{Truncation correction factor ($\gamma)$}?><title>Truncation correction factor (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></title>
      <p id="d1e2615">The final quantitative correction factor that must be applied to the
scattering coefficients measured with the CAPS PMssa is the truncation
correction factor, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. The truncation correction factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is
applied to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to compensate for the light scattered in
near-forward and near-backward directions that is not measured by the
instrument due to geometric restrictions. The truncation correction factor
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> depends on both the instrument properties as well as the angular
distribution of light scattered from the aerosol sample being measured
(referred to in short as the ensemble scattering-phase function, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), which depends on the aerosol size distribution, morphology, mixing state,
and composition (refractive indices). The existing methods for calculating
the CAPS PMssa truncation correction factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> either do not include
the process of scattered light reflection from the inner surface of the glass sampling tube (Onasch et al., 2015) or are computationally expensive (Liu et al., 2018) and not well suited for calculating time-resolved truncation factors for large datasets (e.g., as required for the example Cabauw dataset in Sect. 6.2). Therefore, we present here a new truncation calculation
framework that overcomes both of these limitations.</p>
      <p id="d1e2675">The new calculation framework is presented visually as a flowchart in Fig. 3. The full set of details and equations is given in Appendix A. Briefly, we define <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as the normalized ratio of the true integrated scattering
coefficient, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">true</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, to the truncation-affected scattering coefficient that is actually accessible to measurement, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The true
scattering coefficient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">true</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the coefficient that would
be measured by an ideal integrating nephelometer capable of collecting light
scattered in all possible directions. The ratio requires normalization by a
factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to represent the fact that some scattered light
truncation is already included implicitly in the cross-calibration constant, due to the way in which it is measured. For the recommended case of cross-calibration with Rayleigh scatterers according to Eq. (3), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
represents the truncation of the Rayleigh scattered light from the
calibration aerosol. That is,</p>
      <p id="d1e2759"><disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><label>4</label><mml:math id="M152" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">true</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">true</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">true</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e2872">Schematic diagram of the new model for calculating truncation
correction factors for the CAPS PMssa. Full details of the calculations are
presented in Appendix A. The model requires as input a light collection
efficiency function and an angular sensitivity function, which are
determined by the geometry of the CAPS PMssa optical system; and a scattered
light intensity function for the ensemble of particles being measured, which
is a function of the particle size distribution (dN,<inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> dlogDp) and
size-dependent aerosol scattering-phase function. The main output of the model is the truncation correction factor, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/819/2021/amt-14-819-2021-f03.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e2895">Defined in this manner, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> equals 1 for aerosols in the Rayleigh
regime. For aerosols containing larger particles or non-spherical particles
that produce more forward-focused light scattering, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is always
greater than 1.</p>
      <p id="d1e2912">The equations for calculating the integrated scattering coefficients in Eq. (4) are detailed in Appendix A. These equations have been given in several
previous publications (Anderson et al., 1996; Heintzenberg and Charlson,
1996; Moosmüller and Arnott, 2003; Müller et al., 2011b;
Peñaloza, 1999). The novel aspect of our formulation is that we explicitly define a function representing the efficiency with which an
integrating nephelometer is able to collect scattered light, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is a simple function varying between 0 and 1.
Values of 0 indicate that a nephelometer collects no light of wavelength
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at some scattering angle <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, while values of 1 indicate
that a nephelometer collects all the light scattered at angle <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.
Considering <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> explicitly has a number<?pagebreak page827?> of
advantages: (i) it allows transparent representation of an instrument's
truncation angles (i.e., by setting <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> equal to 1 between two
truncation angles and 0 beyond them), (ii) it allows for the simple and explicit introduction of additional physical processes into light-scattering calculations (e.g., reflection from the glass sampling tube can be considered by combining the Fresnel equation for reflection probability with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,
as shown in Appendix A), (iii) it provides a clear and intuitive way to
compare the abilities of different nephelometers to collect scattered light,
and (iv) it emphasizes the modular nature of the truncation calculation.</p>
      <p id="d1e2989">One of the important characteristics of integrating sphere-type reciprocal nephelometers like the CAPS PMssa is that truncation is a function of
position along the central axis of the optical cavity (which we denote as
the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> dimension, Fig. 1). This characteristic is represented by the small subplots in Fig. 3 that show light collection efficiency curves (termed
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spot</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Appendix A) for six different <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> positions in the CAPS PMssa,
including for two positions at 1 cm outside of the integrating sphere (i.e.,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 6 cm). Positions outside of the integrating sphere must be
considered since it is possible for particles outside the sphere to scatter
light into the sphere (e.g., Varma et al., 2003), even if only through a narrow range of scattering angles. We term the extra length that needs to be
considered outside the sphere's boundaries as the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter. The
geometrical limits for the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter are 0 (i.e., no extra path length
considered) and 4.7 cm (the distance between the integrating sphere and the
sample inlet and outlet ports to the optical cavity). Onasch et al. (2015)
and Liu et al. (2018) both used <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm in their calculations (i.e., they
considered a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> range from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 6 cm). The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spot</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> subplots in Fig. 3 also demonstrate the effect of glass tube reflection: between a sphere's
truncation angles, reflection decreases the probability of light collection
from 1 to some value less than 1. Therefore, glass tube inner surface
reflection serves to increase scattered light truncation. A single,
integrated light collection efficiency function for the CAPS PMssa can be
generated by integrating <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spot</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over all possible <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> positions (Eq. A13).
CAPS PMssa integrated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> functions are shown in Fig. 3 for the two
cases of without and with glass reflection.</p>
      <p id="d1e3112">It is important to stress the implications of the modularity of truncation
calculation. This modularity means that once the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and angular sensitivity functions are known for a<?pagebreak page828?> particular instrument,
they can be combined with any measured or calculated ensemble scattering-phase function in order to calculate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. In the present study, we
used Mie theory and co-located particle size distribution measurements to
efficiently calculate hourly resolved <inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> functions and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values for a month-long field campaign (Sect. 6.2; Fig. S12). This Mie calculation
method assumes spherical, homogeneous particles. If one wished to consider
more complex particle morphologies, a more sophisticated optical model could
be used to calculate the scattering-phase functions <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, or if co-located polar nephelometer measurements of the scattering-phase function were available (e.g., Espinosa et al., 2018), these could be input directly into the truncation calculation.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><?xmltex \opttitle{Absorption error model for the CAPS PMssa and discussion of the sources and
effects of uncertainties in $\beta$ and $\gamma$}?><title>Absorption error model for the CAPS PMssa and discussion of the sources and
effects of uncertainties in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></title>
      <p id="d1e3193">It is critical to carefully consider and understand the sources of errors in
EMS-derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values, since these can be very large when taking the
difference of two potentially larger numbers – <inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> –
that each carry their own uncertainties. Based on the data processing
framework presented in the previous Sect. 2.2, an error model can be
constructed for CAPS PMssa absorption coefficients by considering the
uncertainty in each of the individual parameters on the right-hand side of Eq. (2) and applying the standard rules of error propagation, including
consideration of potential covariance of the errors in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The explicit equations for such a model are given in Appendix B.
Table 1 lists the individual parameters in the error model along with
realistic estimates of their uncertainties. In general, we consider two
sources of uncertainties: uncertainty due to the limited precision with
which a particular parameter can be determined during calibration or
measurement and uncertainty due to possible drift of a parameter between available calibrations or measurements (e.g., baseline drift between two subsequent baseline measurements). For a given parameter, these two sources
of errors are independent and can be added in quadrature, or if one of the errors is much larger than the other, this larger error can simply be
used in error propagation calculations.</p>
      <p id="d1e3251">Many of the individual uncertainty estimates given in Table 1 are taken from
previous studies and will not be discussed in great detail here. However,
the uncertainties in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> correction factors <inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
are still poorly constrained and require further investigation. We refer to
these uncertainties as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
respectively. Onasch et al. (2015) showed that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> can be measured with
high precision for a 630 nm PMssa unit, but the obtainable precision at
other operation wavelengths as well as the stability in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> over time
have not been fully explored. Therefore, the overall <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
still not well characterized.</p>
      <p id="d1e3324">The uncertainty in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is more difficult to quantify. At the highest
level it can be categorized into uncertainties related to the instrument
properties (e.g., should glass tube reflection be considered, and an appropriate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value) and those related to knowledge of the scattering-phase functions of the aerosol samples being measured. Regarding uncertainties in
the latter category, these can be further characterized depending on how the
angularly resolved light-scattering information is obtained. In the best-case scenario, the scattering-phase functions would be obtained directly from co-located polar nephelometer measurements, in which case <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> would depend on the accuracy of these measurements (and possible
extrapolation of those measurements beyond a polar nephelometer's truncation
angles). Since polar nephelometer measurements are rarely performed in
measurement campaigns, it is more likely that scattering-phase functions will be calculated with an optical model (e.g., Mie theory) using co-located
size distribution measurements (covering both sub- and super-micrometer size fractions) as input. In this case, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> will be a function of
the accuracy of the input size distribution measurements, as well as the
representativeness of the optical model and its inputs (e.g., complex refractive index, particle morphology if the optical model includes
treatment of this). In the worst-case scenario, which is expected to occur frequently in field work, there might be no information available to
constrain the scattering-phase function. In this case, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values would need to be assumed. For example, a user might simply assume that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
equals 1, which is equivalent to assuming that all particles in the sample
are Rayleigh light scatterers. In this case, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> should
reflect the possible consequences of that assumption. In Table 1 we provide
some estimates for both <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> that are
based on the results of the present study. These estimates and results are
discussed in specific detail below in Sects. 4, 5, and 6.</p>
      <p id="d1e3407">For now, we use our error model to assess the possible impacts of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on the relative uncertainty in EMS-derived
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, regardless of where the uncertainty in these two parameters
actually comes from. Indeed, we generalize this analysis even further by
considering the relative uncertainty in the combined <inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> correction
factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, given by the equation</p>
      <p id="d1e3464"><disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><label>5</label><mml:math id="M211" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e3526">This approach is motivated by the fact that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> have equal impacts on the uncertainty in EMS-derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and
it is justified because <inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are
independent of one another.</p>
      <?pagebreak page829?><p id="d1e3580">The relative uncertainty in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> calculated with our error model can be
interpreted as the precision with which <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can theoretically be
determined for a given set of error model inputs. It should be noted that in
addition to this precision-based uncertainty, the absolute accuracy of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
will also depend directly on the accuracy of the geometry correction factor
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> if the instrument is cross-calibrated as recommended in Sect. 2.2.2. This is because in the same manner as with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the cross-calibration serves to define <inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with respect to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, which can
be seen by substituting the right-hand side of Eq. (3) into (2):</p>
      <p id="d1e3653"><disp-formula id="Ch1.E6" content-type="numbered"><label>6</label><mml:math id="M224" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">uncalib</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">uncalib</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e3723">In the present study we do not explicitly consider the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-related
uncertainty in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, though it is important to keep this in mind.
Specifically, we note that the errors in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> cause covariant errors in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Hence, the relative error in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> propagates
1-to-1 to the corresponding relative error in EMS-derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, independently of SSA. This is not the case for errors in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, for example, which lead to an error in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> that is
independent of errors in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and therefore relative errors in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> that do vary with SSA. In practice, the uncertainty due to
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> can only be determined by comparison of CAPS PMssa measurements
against an independent reference. It is also worthwhile noting that the uncertainty in SSA measured by CAPS PMssa does not depend on the uncertainty
in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, since this factor simply cancels out when taking the ratio of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This is one of the key design features of the
cross-calibrated instrument (i.e., the relative error in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> makes
identical and covariant contributions to the errors in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>
      <p id="d1e3919">Focusing on the precision-related uncertainty in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> that is quantified
by our error model (Eq. B2), Fig. 4 displays this variable as a
function of the combined relative uncertainty in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for
a range of different atmospheric conditions (two different aerosol loadings
and four different SSA values). The curves in this figure were generated using the following model inputs designed to represent the CAPS630b instrument
characteristics during the Cabauw field campaign (Sect. 6.2): [<inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.73</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.81</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.04</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sample</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sample</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3600</mml:mn></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" 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>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">512</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.35</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" 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>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.66</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" 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>]. Parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was
set to 0 to reflect the fact that the accuracy of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is not
considered in the simulation as well as the assumption that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> does not vary between subsequent cross-calibration measurements. Figure 4 can be interpreted as follows: taking an uncertainty of 5 % for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and
2 % for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (which we will show later to be realistic estimates), the
relative uncertainty in the combined <inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> correction factor equals
5.4 % based on Eq. (6). This example corresponds to vertical blue dashed
line in Fig. 4. Two other realistic examples are also shown in the figure as
vertical dashed lines.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e4241">Theoretically calculated relative uncertainty in 1 h averaged CAPS PMssa <inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements as a function of the relative uncertainty
in the combined scattering correction factor (defined in Eq. 5 using the
ratio of the truncation correction factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and the instrument
cross-calibration factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>). Curves are shown for four different SSA
values (grey shading) and two different aerosol loadings (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 10 and
100 Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). The curves were generated using the error model presented in
Sect. 2.3 and Appendix B with inputs that were chosen to represent
instrument characteristics during the Cabauw field campaign, as detailed in
the main text.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/819/2021/amt-14-819-2021-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4298">Several important and general features are apparent in Fig. 4. Firstly, it
is seen that the precision-related uncertainty in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases
dramatically with small increases in uncertainty in either <inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> or
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. As a result, small uncertainties in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> can
result in large uncertainties in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The relative uncertainty in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is also a strong function of SSA due to the large subtractive error
amplification that results from taking the difference of two large and
uncertain numbers. Taking these two points together and considering the
example case demonstrated by the vertical red dashed line, a combined
uncertainty of only 10.2 % in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> leads to
precision-related uncertainties in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of over 80 % at SSA greater
than 0.9. Such large SSA is very common for atmospheric aerosols, which
highlights why it is so critical to minimize uncertainties in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> when using the CAPS PMssa to measure atmospheric aerosol
absorption with the EMS method.</p>
      <?pagebreak page830?><p id="d1e4403">The divergences between the corresponding dashed and solid grey lines in
Fig. 4 represent the effects of the errors in both the extinction and
scattering baseline signals. These errors can be important under very clean
atmospheric conditions (represented by the case <inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" 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>),
since the absolute differences between sample-mode and baseline signals are
then small. However, these sources of uncertainty are quickly overwhelmed as
uncertainties in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> increase, resulting in the
convergence of the pairs of dashed and solid grey lines moving from left to
right across the figure. For the high aerosol load case (represented by
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" 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>), it is interesting to note that for 0 %
uncertainty in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, the relative uncertainty in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is still SSA dependent, even though <inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> has been defined with
respect to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by the cross-calibration and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> set to 0 in the simulation. This is because <inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sample</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sample</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> still
carry independent uncertainty due to random noise, even if this is
relatively small (i.e., 1 Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at 1 s temporal resolution).</p>
      <p id="d1e4579">The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> uncertainty values displayed in Fig. 4 were simulated to
represent 1 h averaged measurements. Figure S1 indicates that the
equivalent values representing 1 min averaged measurements are
practically equivalent to those shown in Fig. 4, while those representing
1 s measurements are only greater for low values of uncertainty in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. This is because of all the uncertainties listed in
Table 1, only the uncertainties in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sample</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sample</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are
related to random noise and hence can be reduced by signal averaging. Since these error components are small relative to the other error components in
the model, averaging for 1 min or 1 h has only a minor effect on the
calculated uncertainty in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Experimental methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Instrumentation</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS1">
  <label>3.1.1</label><title>Instruments for measuring aerosol light absorption and black carbon
concentrations</title>
      <p id="d1e4676">In this section we detail the experimental methods that we applied to
investigate and characterize the ability of the CAPS PMssa to measure
atmospheric aerosol absorption coefficients. A total of four different CAPS
PMssa monitors were used in this study: one operating at 450 nm, two at 630 nm, and one at 780 nm. The four units are listed in Table 2 along with their
relevant specifications.</p>
      <p id="d1e4679">A multi-angle absorption photometer (MAAP; Thermo Fisher Scientific,
Waltham, MA, USA) was used during the Cabauw field campaign (Sect. 3.4.1) to
measure absolute aerosol absorption coefficients at a wavelength of 637 nm (Petzold and Schönlinner, 2004). As discussed in the Introduction, the
MAAP is a filter-based absorption photometer that incorporates additional
measurements of back-scattered light and a two-stream radiative transfer
scheme in order to constrain aerosol absorption coefficients more tightly
than is possible with simple light attenuation measurements. The MAAP is a
well-known and well-characterized instrument for measuring light absorption
by atmospheric aerosols. The accuracy of MAAP absorption coefficients was
investigated against laboratory reference EMS absorption measurements in the
Reno Aerosol Optics Study (RAOS), and the two methods were found to agree within 7 % for a range of different black-carbon-containing aerosols (Petzold et al., 2005). Müller et al. (2011a) demonstrated that the
unit-to-unit variability between six different MAAP instruments was less
than 5 %. These authors also showed that the true operation wavelength of
the instrument was 637 nm, not the nominal value of 670 nm. Assuming an absorption Ångström exponent of 1.02, a 5 % correction factor
should be applied to the firmware output of the MAAP to account for this
wavelength difference (Müller et al., 2011a). This correction factor was
applied in the present study. A mass absorption cross-section value of 6.6 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> g<inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" 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> was used to convert the equivalent BC mass concentrations reported in the firmware output of the MAAP to absorption coefficients (as
specified by the manufacturer).</p>
      <p id="d1e4703">During the RAOS campaign (Petzold et al., 2005), MAAP absorption
coefficients were observed to have no relationship with aerosol SSA.
However, at extremely high SSA values the absorption coefficient
measurements from the MAAP can be biased high. It is also important to
consider that – to the best of our knowledge – no dedicated study has yet
been performed to assess the precision and accuracy of MAAP measurements of
samples containing a large fraction of super-micrometer particles. To
quantitatively compare the MAAP and CAPS PMssa absorption coefficients
during the Cabauw field campaign, both coefficients were adjusted to
standard temperature (273.15 K) and pressure (1 atm). It should be stressed
that in this comparison we do not consider the MAAP to be a true reference
standard for measuring aerosol absorption coefficients. Rather, the value of
the instrument for the present study lies in the fact that it displays very
low instrument unit-to-unit variability, which means it can provide a common
and stable reference point against which CAPS PMssa absorption measurements
can be compared.</p>
      <p id="d1e4706">A single particle soot photometer (SP2; Droplet Measurement Technologies,
Longmont, CO, USA) was used to measure black carbon mass concentrations at
high time resolution from a mobile laboratory deployed during the Bologna
field campaign (Sect. 3.4.2). The SP2 measures the mass of individual black
carbon particles on a single-particle basis using the principle of
laser-induced incandescence. The instrument has been described in detail
previously (Schwarz et al., 2006; Stephens et al., 2003). Due to its very
high sensitivity and responsiveness, its specific purpose in the present
study was to provide a high time resolution reference time series of
relative absorbing aerosol concentration. Its configuration during the
present study is described by Pileci et al. (2020a).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS2">
  <label>3.1.2</label><title>Particle size classifiers applied for cross-calibration and truncation measurements</title>
      <p id="d1e4717">Two different types of aerosol size classifiers were used to generate
monodisperse test aerosols for the purposes of measuring cross-calibration constants and scattered light truncation: an aerodynamic aerosol classifier
(AAC; Cambustion Ltd, Cambridge, UK) and a differential mobility analyzer
(DMA; custom-built version of the same design as the TSI Model 3081 long-column DMA, TSI Inc. Shoreview, MN, USA). The correct operation and sizing of both
types of classifiers was confirmed throughout all the experiments<?pagebreak page831?> by
measuring nebulized PSL particles of different diameters (i.e., by operating
the classifiers in scanning mode with downstream concentration measurements
performed by a condensation particle counter).</p>
      <p id="d1e4720">The AAC classifies particles based on their relaxation time under the action
of a centrifugal force generated in the annular gap between two rotating
coaxial cylinders (Johnson et al., 2018; Tavakoli and Olfert, 2013). The
particle relaxation time is related to the aerodynamic-equivalent diameter in a straightforward manner. In the context of highly size-dependent optical measurements, the major advantage of such a classification method is that it
does not depend on particle electrical charge (unlike the DMA), which means
the AAC can produce truly monodisperse distributions of particles (i.e., of
finite width but without the presence of additional size distribution modes
due to multiply charged particles). This charge-independent classification approach also enables higher aerosol transmission efficiencies than is
possible with the DMA, which improves the signal-to-noise ratio of any downstream optical measurements. An additional advantage of the AAC relative
to the DMA is that it can classify particles over a wider diameter range,
including particles with diameters of up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m. The AAC was operated in the present study with the sheath-to-aerosol flow
ratio of around <inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which results in geometric standard deviations for the
classified aerosols of around 1.14. The set point aerodynamic diameters were
converted to volume-equivalent diameters using literature values of particle density and assuming the classified particles were spherical.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS3">
  <label>3.1.3</label><title>Particle size distributions of ambient aerosol</title>
      <p id="d1e4761">Measurements of ambient particle size distributions were required during the
Cabauw field campaign (Sect. 3.4.1) as inputs for the truncation correction
calculations. These measurements were obtained by a scanning mobility
particle sizer (modified version of the TSI SMPS 3034; TSI Inc. Shoreview,
MN, USA) covering the mobility diameter range from 10 to 470 nm and an
aerodynamic particle sizer (TSI APS 3321; TSI Inc.) nominally covering the
aerodynamic diameter range from 0.54 to 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m.</p>
      <p id="d1e4772">The hourly averaged SMPS and APS size distributions were merged to create total aerosol size distributions covering the diameter range from 0.0104 to 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m for use in the truncation calculations. This was achieved by
first converting the measured diameters of the respective instruments to
volume-equivalent diameters. The SMPS electrical mobility diameters were simply taken to represent volume-equivalent diameter (i.e., shape effects were neglected). The APS aerodynamic diameters were divided by the square
root of particle effective density to translate them into volume-equivalent diameters. A constant effective density of 2 g cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" 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> was assumed. The
joined size distributions were then created by linearly interpolating the
SMPS and shifted APS measurements onto a common diameter scale between
0.0104 and 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m. The APS measurements of particles with physical diameters of less than 0.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m were not used in this joining calculation
since they are known to display counting efficiency problems (Pfeifer et
al., 2016).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Measurements of scattering cross-calibration constants</title>
      <p id="d1e4820">Scattering cross-calibration constants (Sect. 2.2.2) were measured with the experimental arrangement shown in Fig. S2. Ammonium sulfate particles or PSL spheres were generated in a Collison-type nebulizer and passed through a
diffusion drier filled with silica gel for drying. A filtered bypass line
was used after the nebulizer, and the ratios of the flows in this bypass line and the normal sampling line were adjusted to provide control on the
concentration of the nebulized aerosol.</p>
      <p id="d1e4823">In the default laboratory setup, after drying the particles were passed
through a size classifier to produce monodisperse distributions of particles
with modal diameters less than 200 nm (i.e., to produce particles with size
parameters less than approximately 1 that fall within or at least near the
Rayleigh light-scattering regime; see Sect. 2.2.2). Additionally, to investigate a simplified procedure for potential application in field
campaigns, selected calibrations were also performed by bypassing the size
classifier. In this case only PSL particles with diameters less than 200 nm were produced with the nebulizer to keep the generated aerosol within or
near the Rayleigh light-scattering regime. Nevertheless, it is possible that larger PSL aggregates (doublets or triplets) were also generated by the
nebulizer. Such aggregates would be large enough to cause non-Rayleigh light
scattering. In addition, large numbers of non-PSL, smaller particles (most
with diameters <inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 nm with tails extending to 100 nm or larger) are also produced when nebulizing PSL due to the presence of surfactants and other impurities in the PSL and Milli-Q water solutions. The
composition of these particles is generally unknown. The possibility that
they contained substantial absorbing components is unlikely but cannot be
ruled out, which would violate the required cross-calibration condition that the calibration aerosol has SSA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.</p>
      <p id="d1e4843">In some of the calibrations a storage volume was placed upstream of the CAPS
PMssa unit being calibrated. In these experiments the volume was first
filled with calibration aerosol and the CAPS PMssa was then used to draw the
concentration in the volume down to near zero. This enabled measurement of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over a broad range of aerosol loads. In other cases
the calibration aerosol was simply fed directly to the CAPS PMssa unit being
calibrated. In all cases we limited the calibration measurements either
during the experiment or later during data processing to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values
less than 1000 Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" 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 avoid non-linearity issues between the
scattering and extinction measurements (Sect. 2.2.2).</p>
      <p id="d1e4880">Two examples of scattering cross-calibration measurements are shown in Figs. S3 and S4. Figure S3 is an example of a calibration performed with 240 nm PSL particles with<?pagebreak page832?> the storage volume present to enable measurement across a
broad range of aerosol loadings, while Fig. S4 shows an example where the
storage volume was not used such that the measurements only cover a narrow
range of aerosol loading. The 240 nm PSL particles are slightly larger than
the particles we typically use for cross-calibration, but these two examples are shown here to demonstrate the effect of the storage volume. The top
panels of these figures show time series of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M320" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M321" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">uncalib</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the bottom left panel displays these variables in a
scatterplot on a log–log axis. Onasch et al. (2015) determined <inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as the gradient of a line fit to the scatterplot data. To avoid any potential linear fitting artifacts caused by outlying measurements, we elected to determine <inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as the mean
value of the ratio of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">uncalib</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values greater
than 50 Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" 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>. This lower limit was chosen to avoid low signal-to-noise
ratio measurements affecting the determined <inline-formula><mml:math id="M327" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
bottom right panels of Figs. S3 and S4 display histograms of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M328" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">uncalib</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio (with the condition <inline-formula><mml:math id="M329" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" 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>). It is seen that the values of the ratio are typically normally
distributed, regardless of whether the measurements covered a broad range of
extinction values or not (Fig. S3 vs. S4). We take the standard deviation of
the measured ratios to represent the precision with which <inline-formula><mml:math id="M331" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can be determined.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Measurements of scattered light truncation as a function of particle
diameter</title>
      <p id="d1e5065">The general experimental setup that is shown in Fig. S2 was also used to
measure scattered light truncation as a function of particle diameter, in
order to validate our new truncation calculations (Sect. 2.2.3).
Size-resolved truncation measurements can be performed directly with the
CAPS PMssa using size-classified, non-absorbing test aerosols and taking
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M332" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">true</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Eq. (4). Similarly to the cross-calibration constant <inline-formula><mml:math id="M336" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, we applied a threshold condition of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M337" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M338" 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> when
calculating mean ratios of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M339" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M340" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. For this
application, the AAC was always used as the size classifier, since the AAC
is able to generate truly monodisperse distributions of particles (i.e.,
finite width but without additional size modes due to multiply charged
particles) and provides a larger upper size limit.</p>
      <p id="d1e5197">We measured truncation values for three different types of non-absorbing
aerosols: PSL, DEHS (di-ethyl-hexyl-sebacat), and ammonium sulfate. The relevant properties of these aerosols are listed in Table 3. Three aerosol types were used in order to check consistency across different aerosols to
provide more robust results. Nebulized and dried PSL and DEHS particles are
spherical, while dried ammonium sulfate particles are at least near-spherical (e.g., Biskos et al., 2006). Spherical or near-spherical particles were used so that the aerosol-phase functions could be calculated precisely with Mie theory. The geometric standard deviations of the monodisperse DEHS
and ammonium sulfate aerosols were nominally around 1.14 as determined by the operating conditions of the AAC (Sect. 3.1.2). We used geometric
standard deviations of 1.1 in our model calculations for these two aerosol
types. The widths of PSL size distributions are size-dependent and generally narrower than the transfer function of the AAC as used in these experiments.
Therefore, we considered two geometric standard deviations of 1.05 and 1.1
in our model calculations for PSL. Rayleigh normalization factors (i.e.,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">true</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; see Eq. 4) were measured at the beginning of each experimental run using particles of the given aerosol type with size
parameters less than or close to 1. A number of repeat experiments were
performed for some of the aerosol types, as indicated in Table 3.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Table}?><label>Table 3</label><caption><p id="d1e5237">Test aerosols used to measure scattered light truncation in the
CAPS PMssa as a function of particle diameter and the values of parameters
used in the corresponding model calculations. All particles were size
classified by AAC.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="justify" colwidth="3cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="2.7cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="justify" colwidth="3cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="justify" colwidth="7cm"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Test aerosol</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Refractive index<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(wavelength)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Geometric standard<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>deviation of the<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>size distributions</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Number of repeat experiments at each wavelength<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(dates)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PSL spheres</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M342" 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 450,<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>630 and 780 nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.05 and 1.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2 at 450 nm, 3 at 630 and 780 nm (between April 2018 and January 2020)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">DEHS (di-ethyl-<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>hexyl-sebacat)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M343" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.46</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 450 nm); <inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.45</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 630 and 780 nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1 at 450, 630 and 780 nm (January 2019)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Ammonium<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>sulfate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M345" 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 450, 630, and 780 nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3 at 450 nm, 4 at 630 nm, and 2 at 780 nm (between April and August 2018)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <label>3.4</label><title>Field measurements</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4.SSS1">
  <label>3.4.1</label><title>Cabauw campaign</title>
      <p id="d1e5402">The Cabauw field campaign was conducted from 11 September to 20 October 2016
at the KNMI (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut) Cabauw
Experimental Site for Atmospheric Research (the Netherlands; 51<inline-formula><mml:math id="M346" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>58<inline-formula><mml:math id="M347" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 4<inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>55<inline-formula><mml:math id="M349" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M350" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m a.s.l.). The campaign was conducted in the framework of the ACTRIS project (WP11) and occurred simultaneously with
the CINDI-2 MAX-DOAS intercomparison campaign (Kreher et al., 2020). The
CAPS630b unit was the CAPS PMssa instrument deployed during this campaign to
measure absorption coefficients at 630 nm. Absorption coefficients were also
measured at 637 nm with a MAAP (Sect. 3.1.1). Particle size distributions
were measured with an SMPS and APS (Sect. 3.1.3). All instruments were
housed in a laboratory at the base of the KNMI-mast Cabauw behind identical
inlets consisting of PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M351" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> sampling hats protruding 4.5 m from the laboratory
roof. The inlets contained large diameter Nafion driers, which kept relative humidity in the sampling lines below 50 %. All the data used in the present study were averaged over 1 h periods. This includes the joined SMPS and APS size distributions (Sect. 3.1.3), which used to calculate hourly resolved truncation correction factors using the model presented in Appendix A.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4.SSS2">
  <label>3.4.2</label><title>Bologna campaign</title>
      <p id="d1e5469">The Bologna field campaign was conducted from 5 to 31 July 2017. This
campaign was also conducted within the framework of the ACTRIS project. The
full campaign consisted of multiple stationary measurement sites that were
centered around the city of Bologna in Italy's Po Valley. Additionally, a
heavily instrumented mobile measurement van (the MOSQUITA; Bukowiecki et
al., 2002; Weimer et al., 2009) travelled between the stationary sites to
perform spatially resolved measurements of black carbon concentrations and properties. The results of these mobile measurements are presented by Pileci
et al. (2020a). In the present study we use only 1 h of mobile measurements that were performed from the MOSQUITA while it was travelling
on the heavily<?pagebreak page833?> trafficked A1 highway between Bologna and Lodi on the morning of 25 July 2017. During this time period absorption coefficients were being
measured with the CAPS780 and black carbon concentrations with an SP2 (Sect. 3.1.1).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4.SSS3">
  <label>3.4.3</label><title>Payerne campaign</title>
      <p id="d1e5480">The Payerne field campaign was conducted from 26 August 2019 to 14 January 2020 in Payerne, Switzerland, and involved the PMssa units CAPS450 and CAPS780. The goal of this campaign was to compare the hygroscopic properties
of aerosols measured using remote sensing and in situ techniques. In the
present study we only present the results of the CAPS PMssa cross-calibrations that were performed for the campaign: no ambient measurements
are shown. In addition to the cross-calibrations that were performed at the Payerne field site with the CAPS450 and CAPS780 units, we also present the
results of calibrations performed immediately before and after the campaign
in the Aerosol Physics Laboratory of the Paul Scherrer Institute. In
addition to the other two PMssa units, the CAPS630a was also included in these laboratory calibrations.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Precision of determination of the cross-calibration factor and its stability over time</title>
      <p id="d1e5494">The cross-calibration constants that were measured for the CAPS450, CAPS630a, and CAPS780 PMssa units during and around the Payerne field campaign are
presented in Fig. 5. These measurements are used to assess the stability of
the cross-calibration constant (variability over the time series) and the precision with which it can be determined (error bars represent the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M352" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> standard deviation of the ratios of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">uncalib</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M354" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for each
calibration, as visualized in the lower right panels of Figs. S3 and S4).
Some of the measurements were performed on size-classified aerosols (solid
plot markers), and some were performed without classification (open plot
markers), as discussed in Sect. 3.2.</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="d1e5539">Rayleigh-regime cross-calibration constants (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) for three CAPS PMssa units (CAPS450, CAPS630a, CAPS780)
measured before, during, and after the Payerne field campaign. Error bars indicate the standard deviation of the measured ratios used to determine
each <inline-formula><mml:math id="M356" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> value (see Sect. 3.2).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/819/2021/amt-14-819-2021-f05.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e5570">To investigate the effect of size classifying the aerosol, four calibrations
were purposely performed back-to-back, with and without an AAC size
classifier. The results of these back-to-back calibrations are plotted on
their own in Fig. S5. In two cases, the cross-calibration constants
determined with and without size classification were similar (CAPS630a with
a difference of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M357" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % between calibrations and CAPS450 run2 with a difference of 2.8 %). However, in the other two cases the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M358" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> value determined without size classification was
substantially less than the value determined with classification: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M359" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %
difference for CAPS450 run1 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % difference for CAPS780. This is likely because of the presence of PSL doublets or triplets or because the
non-PSL particles that are unavoidably generated during the PSL nebulization
process either contained absorbing components or were big and abundant
enough to cause substantial non-Rayleigh light scattering. In any case, we
assume that the cross-calibrations performed with size classification provide the most trustworthy measurement, since it is more certain that all the required conditions for the cross-calibration are met.</p>
      <p id="d1e5615">Despite the potential differences between size-classified and non-size-classified measurements, some important results are still clearly seen in
Fig. 5. Firstly, it is apparent that the variability in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M361" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over time is instrument-dependent. The different behaviors
observed for these three PMssa units represent the range of performances we
have observed for CAPS PMssa monitors in the field. The least stable unit in
this context was the CAPS450. In the 10 days prior to the beginning of the campaign, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M362" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for CAPS450 was observed to decrease from 0.63 to 0.53. During the campaign itself, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M363" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ranged from
0.43 to 0.28, showing a general decreasing trend as the campaign progressed.
This observed drift corresponds to tens to hundreds of % of uncertainty in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M364" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 4). The CAPS450 instrument diagnostics provided no
evidence of instrument malfunction, change, or contamination during this
period. Therefore, this example demonstrates that regular cross-calibration validation measurements are necessary to exclude significant drifts. Given
that the precise reason for instability in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M365" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is unknown,
we refrain<?pagebreak page834?> from providing a stability-based uncertainty estimate for this
unit in Table 1. However, the four individual AAC-based calibrations
performed in the laboratory prior to the beginning of the campaign still
provided a chance to investigate the precision-based uncertainty in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M366" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for CAPS450. The average standard deviation of the ratios of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M367" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">uncalib</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M368" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measured during these four calibrations was
0.009, which is 1.5 % of the average <inline-formula><mml:math id="M369" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 0.60.
Therefore, we conservatively estimate that the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M370" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can be
determined with a precision of 2 % for this unit (Table 1).</p>
      <p id="d1e5737">The averaged value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M371" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for CAPS780 was 0.27 over the 14
measurements taken during the 140 d of the campaign (from days 10 to 151 on the cumulative days' <inline-formula><mml:math id="M372" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis). The minimum and maximum values measured during this period were 0.26 and 0.28, respectively. Thus, we conservatively
estimate a stability-derived uncertainty value of 8 % (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M373" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for
this unit in Table 1 while noting that this estimate is derived from calibration measurements without a size classifier, which may have
contributed to the observed variability. The 8 % uncertainty range is
represented by the green-shaded uncertainty band in Fig. 5. The
precision-based uncertainty estimate in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M374" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for this unit
is determined from the five AAC-based cross-calibrations performed in the laboratory before and after the campaign (i.e., the average size of the
green error bars). From these measurements we calculate a precision-derived
uncertainty of 6 %. The CAPS630a was not operated during the Payerne field
campaign period. However, laboratory measurements before and after the
campaign indicated that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M375" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for this unit can be
determined with a very high precision of 2 % and is stable to within 2 %
over time. We believe that this unit represents an example of the best-case performance for cross-calibration precision and stability that is possible with the CAPS PMssa.</p>
      <p id="d1e5802">In addition to continual drifts in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M376" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over time, it is also interesting to note how <inline-formula><mml:math id="M377" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can change following
known instrument-malfunction events such as contamination of the PMssa
optical cavity. Figure S6 displays CAPS PMssa measured <inline-formula><mml:math id="M378" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (left panel)
and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M379" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (right panel) at 450 nm against independent measurements of
these quantities (CAPS PMex for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M380" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, nephelometer for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M381" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> during
a field campaign at the rural background site of Melpitz, Germany.
For the duration of these measurements the optical cavity of the 450 nm PMssa unit became contaminated, moving the instrument outside of its
intended range of operation, with average baseline optical loss varying from
758 to 1248 Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M382" 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>. Such contamination events can occur due to large
pressure fluctuations in the aerosol sampling line or failure of the
instrument's purge flow system. They do not occur just by measuring high
aerosol loads. In this case, the instrument-malfunction contamination event
caused an increase in the bias of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M383" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement relative to the
corresponding PMex measurement from 5 % to 17 %. However, over the same
period, the bias of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M384" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement with respect to the
corresponding nephelometer measurement was unchanged, which implies that
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M385" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> did change. Therefore, as specified by the
manufacturer, we recommend that the CAPS PMssa baseline should be monitored
continuously throughout measurement campaigns for signs<?pagebreak page835?> of mirror
contamination and that contaminated mirrors are cleaned promptly.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <label>5</label><title>Laboratory truncation measurements and comparison against model calculations</title>
      <p id="d1e5927">The results of the laboratory truncation measurements as a function of
AAC-selected particle diameter are shown in Fig. 6 for both PSL and DEHS
test aerosols. We refer to these curves as “truncation curves”. Truncation
curves are a useful way to validate truncation calculations since the
particle size is a key determinant of the aerosol scattering-phase function and consequently <inline-formula><mml:math id="M386" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for spherical particles of known constituent
material. Following earlier studies (Liu et al., 2018; Onasch et al., 2015),
we display measured truncation values as the inverse of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M387" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as defined
by Eq. (4). Measurements are presented at three different wavelengths
(corresponding to the three figure columns) as measured by the CAPS450,
CAPS630a, and CAPS780 PMssa units. The equivalent measurements for ammonium sulfate are shown in Fig. S7. These results are not included in Fig. 6 since we suspect that the ammonium sulfate particles were slightly
non-spherical after nebulization and drying, which makes them less useful
for comparison with Mie-theory-based model curves, as is done below. Nevertheless, it is seen that the ammonium sulfate measurements are qualitatively consistent with the PSL and DEHS results over many repeated
experiments. The PSL measurements at 450 and 630 nm presented by Onasch et
al. (2015) are also included in Fig. 6. They indicate less truncation than
the corresponding measurements from the present study. The reasons for these
discrepancies are not entirely clear but may be related to the fact that the
Onasch et al. (2015) measurements were obtained after size classification by
DMA, although the authors found no substantial evidence of additional size
distribution peaks due to multiply charged particles (and such particles would anyway cause greater truncation, not less).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e5946">Measured and modeled truncation values as a function of volume-equivalent particle diameter for PSL and DEHS aerosols. The truncation
values plotted on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M388" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axes correspond to the inverse of the truncation correction factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M389" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> defined by Eq. (4). Modeled curves were
calculated with the truncation model presented in Appendix A as well as the
radiative transfer equation (RTE) model presented by Liu et al. (2018). The
parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M390" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the extra path length beyond the integrating sphere,
and gsd refers to the geometric standard deviation of the modeled test
aerosols.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/819/2021/amt-14-819-2021-f06.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e5976">A variety of modeled truncation curves are also displayed in each panel of Fig. 6 for comparison with the measurements. Broadly, these can be
classified into calculations that include the process of scattered light
reflection from the inner surface of the glass sampling tube and those that do not. One uncertain parameter is the extra path length outside the
integrating sphere that contributes to scattered light collection (the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M391" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
parameter), which was set to 1 cm in the original model calculations by
Onasch et al. (2015) without considering glass tube reflection (dashed grey
lines in panels a and b). The corresponding truncation curves calculated with the new model presented in Appendix A and with the process of glass
tube reflection switched off (solid light grey lines) agree well with the
original model. Calculations made with the new model with the process of
glass tube reflection turned on and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M392" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> set to 1 cm are shown as the solid
colored lines. The shaded envelopes around these curves demonstrate the
sensitivity of modeled truncation to variation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M393" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> between its lower and upper geometrical boundaries (0 cm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M394" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm). Finally, the
dashed colored curves in each panel are truncation curves calculated with the RTE-based model presented by Liu et al. (2018). These curves include the
process of glass tube reflection and assume <inline-formula><mml:math id="M395" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm.</p>
      <p id="d1e6027">Measured and modeled truncation curves all display the same general features. Truncation values are relatively flat up to a volume-equivalent diameter of around 200 nm (or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M396" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">150</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm at the 450 nm wavelength). This corresponds to the approximate limit of the Rayleigh light-scattering regime. At larger diameters, particles begin scattering
relatively more light in near-forward directions, where it escapes from the
CAPS PMssa integrating sphere. As a result of this loss of scattered light,
the truncation curve begins decreasing with increasing particle diameters in
a complicated but well-known manner due to the variation of the scattering-phase function with particle diameter. Specifically, at diameters <inline-formula><mml:math id="M397" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M398" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m, peaks in the truncation curves
occur due to Mie resonances. The peaks are slightly broadened by the small
polydispersity of the AAC-selected size distributions. This can be seen when
comparing the Onasch et al. (2015) modeled curves, which were calculated assuming a perfectly monodisperse distribution of particles, and the
modeled curves from the present study, which consider the finite width of the experimental size distributions (in the case of PSL two geometric
standard deviations of 1.05 and 1.1 are modeled). The remarkable fact that
the Mie resonances are discernible in the measured PSL and DEHS truncation curves, even if perfect quantitative agreement is not obtained with the models, provides high confidence in the AAC-CAPS PMssa setup for measuring
scattered light truncation. The Mie resonances are not as apparent in the
ammonium sulfate measurements, which we suspect is likely due to particle non-sphericity as mentioned above.</p>
      <p id="d1e6060">In general, good agreement is obtained between the new model calculations
including the process of glass tube reflection and the RTE model
calculations. This is encouraging given these models are based on
fundamentally different approaches for calculating truncation. Both of these
modeled curves predict generally greater truncation than the calculations that neglect the process of glass tube reflection, as expected from
theoretical considerations (Sect. 2.2.3). The measurements are in better
agreement with the modeled curves that include glass tube reflection,
demonstrating that this process must be considered in the calculations. This
is a robust result that is consistent across all three aerosol types for
particle diameters up to 5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M399" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m and all three optical wavelengths that
were investigated.</p>
      <?pagebreak page836?><p id="d1e6071">Considering the calculations made with the new model presented in Appendix A, the best agreement with the measured data appears to be obtained for an
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M400" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value of 1 cm. However, there is enough scatter in the measurements to
argue that any <inline-formula><mml:math id="M401" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value is plausible within the geometric limits of this
parameter (from 0 to 4.7 cm). Although varying <inline-formula><mml:math id="M402" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> over this range captures the
measurements well, we stress that this does not imply that variable <inline-formula><mml:math id="M403" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
physical reason for the measurement imprecision. For one, it can be argued
that the lower limit <inline-formula><mml:math id="M404" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value of 0 cm is unrealistic since it is expected that
particles at the boundary of the sphere will certainly scatter light into
the sphere. Similarly, our model uses an idealized geometry of the interior
of the CAPS PMssa cell. Nevertheless, varying <inline-formula><mml:math id="M405" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from 0 to 4.7 cm produces
differences in calculated truncation that are similar to the differences
observed between repeat measurements, as well as to the differences between
calculations made with the two models that include the process of glass tube
reflection (i.e., the model presented in Appendix A and the RTE model).
Therefore, similarly to Onasch et al. (2015), we use <inline-formula><mml:math id="M406" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as a convenient tuning
parameter to produce an uncertainty envelope that captures the range of
measured truncation curves reasonably well.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6">
  <label>6</label><title>Examples from the field: measurements of atmospheric aerosol absorption
coefficients with the CAPS PMssa</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS1">
  <label>6.1</label><title>Bologna example: instrument sensitivity and rapid response time</title>
      <p id="d1e6139">Two key features of the CAPS PMssa as a flow-through, continuously measuring optical instrument are its sensitivity and rapid response time. Onasch et
al. (2015) demonstrate the instrument is able to respond to changes in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M407" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M408" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of less than 1 Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M409" 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> on timescales of only
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M410" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s. These specifications suggest that EMS-derived
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M411" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values measured by CAPS PMssa will display similar responsiveness
and sensitivity. If so, these specifications would represent a major
improvement over the equivalent specifications for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M412" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values measured
by filter-based absorption photometers, which are based on the slower
process of accumulation and detection of aerosol samples on a filter.</p>
      <?pagebreak page837?><p id="d1e6209">To investigate these features under real-world conditions, Fig. 7 presents
co-located measurements of aerosol absorption coefficients obtained with the
CAPS780 instrument and rBC mass concentration measurements obtained with an
SP2. The measurements were obtained while travelling along a busy highway
road in a mobile laboratory near Bologna, Italy, where black carbon was
shown to be the dominant source of absorbing aerosol. Indeed, the observed
correlation between the independent measurements of black carbon and aerosol
absorption is remarkably good, especially given the short averaging time of
5 s. In particular, the sharp peaks that are observed in both time
series are found to align with each other extremely well. These peaks
correspond to black carbon emissions from passing vehicles on the highway.
Although this is only a 1 h sample of data, this example demonstrates the EMS-derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M413" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values can be measured at very high time resolution
with the CAPS PMssa, comparable to what can be achieved with the
single-particle level measurements of rBC mass from an SP2.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e6225">Time series of a 1 h period of 5 s averaged rBC mass
concentration and absorption coefficient measurements made from the mobile
laboratory traveling on a highway road during the Bologna campaign. rBC mass
concentrations were measured by SP2 – a sensitive, single-particle-based
instrument. Absorption coefficients were measured at 780 nm with the unit
CAPS780. Note that the absorption coefficients have only been corrected for
Rayleigh scattering truncation and therefore should not be interpreted
quantitatively (e.g., they cannot be used to calculate mass-absorption cross sections for the BC). In addition, the SP2 measurements have not been
corrected for missing mass and should also not be interpreted quantitatively
(Pileci et al., 2020b). Spikes in the time series correspond to emissions
from passing vehicles on the highway.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/819/2021/amt-14-819-2021-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e6235">Although Fig. 7 demonstrates the responsiveness of the CAPS PMssa, it must
be stressed that the absolute values of the plotted <inline-formula><mml:math id="M414" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements
are still uncertain and should not be used quantitatively (the SP2
measurements of rBC mass are also underestimated and should not be used
quantitatively, since the instrument was unable to detect an unknown
fraction of the total rBC mass due to the small size of the freshly emitted BC cores; Pileci et al., 2020b). Specifically for the CAPS PMssa
measurements, the plotted quantity is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M415" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to indicate that the
underlying <inline-formula><mml:math id="M416" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements have not been corrected for the truncation
of non-Rayleigh scattered light. To do so accurately would require co-located, equally high time resolution measurements of either scattering-phase functions or information that could be used to calculate phase
functions (e.g., size distributions, fractal BC properties) for the freshly emitted BC-containing emissions plumes. Nevertheless, the ability to measure
relative <inline-formula><mml:math id="M417" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values at high time resolution with the CAPS PMssa creates
possibilities for new types of experiments that were not previously feasible
with traditional absorption photometers.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS2">
  <label>6.2</label><title>Cabauw example: comparison of CAPS PMssa absorption measurements against
independent measurements with a MAAP</title>
      <p id="d1e6296">In this section we use an example dataset from the Cabauw campaign to make a
direct absorption instrument-to-instrument comparison between the CAPS PMssa
and the MAAP. This comparison is performed in order to gain insight into the
ability of the CAPS PMssa to measure absolute aerosol absorption
coefficients. As discussed in Sect. 3.1.1, the MAAP was used for this
comparison because it provides stable and reproducible absorption
measurements. However, it should be reiterated that the MAAP is not a true
absorption reference standard: this instrument is associated with its own
measurement uncertainties, which are not well characterized for aerosols
with large contributions of super-micrometer particles. Despite these
issues, our focus here is only on the uncertainties related to the CAPS
PMssa absorption measurements, including detailed characterization of the
scattered light truncation effect. The CAPS630b was the PMssa unit operated
during the Cabauw campaign. The unit ran autonomously, continuously, and
stably over the 1 month of operation, which we have found to be typical for CAPS PMssa units operated at stationary field sites.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS2.SSS1">
  <label>6.2.1</label><title>CAPS PMssa baseline characteristics</title>
      <p id="d1e6306">The scattering and extinction baseline measurements over the campaign are
displayed in Fig. S8. These measurements were performed for 1 min every 10 min using the auto-baselining feature of the instrument. The average
standard deviations of the extinction and scattering baseline measurements
over all 1 min baseline periods were 0.35 and 0.66 Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M418" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively.
We take these values to represent the precision-based uncertainty estimates
in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M419" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M420" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Table 1. Both baseline time
series indicate that the optical cavity was generally clean and suffered no
major contamination events during the campaign. Figure S8 also contains time
series of the baseline drift in each channel, which were calculated from the
differences between two successive baseline measurements (i.e., over a
period of 10 min, which means the calculated metric does not include
possible variations over shorter timescales). On average, the extinction baseline drifted by 0.026 Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M421" 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> min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M422" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and the scattering baseline
by 0.013 Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M423" 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> min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M424" 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>. Individual values of up to 0.3 and 0.09 Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M425" 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> min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M426" 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> were observed in the extinction and scattering
channels, respectively. To minimize the impacts of these drifts, both the
extinction and scattering measurements were reprocessed using the method of
linear interpolation between successive baseline measurements (Pfeifer et
al., 2020). Figure S9 indicates that this reprocessing had a noticeable effect
at a 1 s time resolution for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M427" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values less than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M428" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M429" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M430" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values less than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M431" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M432" 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>.
However, these effects are averaged out when considering hourly averaged data.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS2.SSS2">
  <label>6.2.2</label><?xmltex \opttitle{Uncertainties in the CAPS PMssa $b_{\mathrm{sca}}$ correction factors $\beta$ and
$\gamma$}?><title>Uncertainties in the CAPS PMssa <inline-formula><mml:math id="M433" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> correction factors <inline-formula><mml:math id="M434" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M435" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></title>
      <p id="d1e6528">The cross-calibration constant for the CAPS630b could be measured with high precision (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M436" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %) and appeared to be very stable based on
measurements at the beginning (0.82; Fig. S10) and at the end of the
campaign (0.80; Fig. S11), which differed by only 2.5 %. This is
comparable with the optimum performance we have observed for CAPS PMssa
units with regards to cross-calibration (see Sect. 4).</p>
      <p id="d1e6541">In the absence of direct scattering-phase function measurements, hourly time-resolved truncation correction factors were calculated with the Mie-theory-based model<?pagebreak page838?> presented in Appendix A. Joined size distributions measured by
SMPS and APS were input into the model. To estimate the uncertainty in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M437" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> a sensitivity analysis was performed with respect to the model's
input parameters. This analysis is presented in the Supplement as Sect. S1 and visualized in Fig. S12. Specifically, we
investigated the sensitivity of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M438" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to the ambient aerosol refractive
index (real parts between 1.50 and 1.59 and imaginary parts between 0.00 and 0.01, based on the summary of measurements presented by Espinosa et al. (2019), the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M439" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter (varied from 0 to 4.7 cm based on the results
presented in Sect. 5), and the accuracy of the coarse-mode size distribution measurements between diameters of 2.5 and 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M440" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m. The truncation
correction was found to be most sensitive to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M441" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M442" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % across the range of tested parameters), weakly sensitive to the real
part of the refractive index and size distribution information between 2.5
and 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M443" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m, and barely sensitive at all to complex part of the
refractive index (not shown). Overall, we estimate an uncertainty in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M444" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of 6 % for the Cabauw campaign based on this analysis
(difference between the minimum and maximum average values of all the
simulated distributions shown in Fig. S12). However, it must be stressed
that this estimate is limited by our Mie-theory-based calculations, which do not include potential effects due to morphologically complex particles such as freshly emitted fractal BC aggregates. That is, the estimate only covers
the parametric uncertainty in our Mie-theory-based calculations.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS2.SSS3">
  <label>6.2.3</label><title>Truncation effects for fine-mode-dominated and coarse-mode-containing samples</title>
      <p id="d1e6614">The distributions of the time-resolved truncation correction factors
calculated over the Cabauw campaign are clearly bi-modal (Fig. S12). This
indicates that there were two limiting types of aerosols measured during the
campaign: (i) fine-mode-dominated aerosol that only required a minor truncation correction; and (ii) aerosol with a substantial coarse-mode fraction that required a larger truncation correction. For further investigation, we
extracted two subsets of data representing the fine-mode-dominated and coarse-mode-containing samples. This was done by selecting those aerosols
whose coarse-mode number fractions (defined as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M445" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">total</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> calculated from size distributions)
are in the lower and upper quartiles of all the data, respectively. The
median normalized size distributions for these two categories are plotted in
Fig. S13. The figure clearly shows a coarse mode of particles with diameters
between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M446" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M447" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m that was present in the
coarse-mode-containing samples but not the fine-mode-dominated aerosols. Despite the small number fractions, these coarse-mode particles can make
substantial contributions to the scattering coefficients, and they produce a greater fraction of forward- and backward-scattered light, thereby affecting
truncation disproportionately.</p>
      <?pagebreak page839?><p id="d1e6667">The distributions of the time-resolved <inline-formula><mml:math id="M448" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values for the fine-mode-dominated and coarse-mode-containing groups of samples are displayed in Fig. S14 (for the same ranges of model inputs that were examined for the full
Cabauw dataset in Fig. S12). As expected, the required truncation correction
values are substantially smaller for the fine-mode-dominated group than the coarse-mode-containing samples. This follows from the normalized ensemble
scattering-phase functions for each group, which are displayed in the right panel of Fig. S13. These functions were calculated from the median size
distributions with Mie theory and an assumed refractive index of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M449" 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> (functions like these are required as inputs for the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M450" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
calculation, as shown in Fig. 3). It is seen that the phase function for the
fine-mode-dominated category is less focused in the near-forward (scattering angles <inline-formula><mml:math id="M451" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M452" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and backward (scattering angles <inline-formula><mml:math id="M453" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">125</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M454" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) scattering directions than that of the coarse-mode-containing category, which is why these samples are associated with lower <inline-formula><mml:math id="M455" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
values.</p>
      <p id="d1e6742">Figure S13 also compares the Mie calculated scattering-phase functions with measurements obtained by Espinosa et al. (2018) from a broad range of
aircraft flights conducted throughout the USA. Three categories of
measurements are shown: two categories of coarse-mode-containing aerosols (coarse categories 1 and 2) and one category of “fine” aerosols (which is
comprised of measurements for aerosols classified as “urban”, “biomass
burning” and “biogenic”, all of which were observed to have very similar
scattering-phase functions). The calculated scattering-phase functions agree reasonably well with the corresponding measurements at near-forward
scattering angles (comparing the fine-mode-dominated and “fine” categories; and the coarse-mode-containing and the two coarse categories). However, at
near-backward scattering angles the Mie calculations predict proportionally
more light scattering than is observed in the measurements. If it is assumed
that the measurements by Espinosa et al. (2018) are reasonably
representative of the average scattering-phase functions of these aerosol types also in European continental air masses, this comparison suggests that
the Mie calculations would tend to slightly overestimate the truncation
correction factors displayed in Figs. S12 and S14, and that the degree of
overestimation would be greater for the coarse-mode-containing group than the fine-mode-dominated samples. Considering only the parametric uncertainty in the calculated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M456" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values (i.e., that uncertainty related to the
Mie truncation model inputs), we estimate values of 4 % and 9 % for the
fine-mode-dominated and coarse-mode-containing groups, respectively, based on the minimum and maximum mean values for each of the groups shown in Fig. S14.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS2.SSS4">
  <label>6.2.4</label><?xmltex \opttitle{Comparison of CAPS PMssa and MAAP $b_{\mathrm{abs}}$ measurements}?><title>Comparison of CAPS PMssa and MAAP <inline-formula><mml:math id="M457" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements</title>
      <p id="d1e6773">Considering all of the underlying CAPS PMssa uncertainties for the Cabauw
dataset that are summarized in Table 1, it is clear that the largest
individual source of uncertainty is related to the truncation correction
that must be applied to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M458" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. To investigate the effect of this
uncertainty on the ultimate derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M459" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, Fig. 8 compares these
measurements against independent <inline-formula><mml:math id="M460" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements obtained with a MAAP
under three different truncation correction scenarios (corresponding to the
three rows of the figure). It is worth recalling that the coefficients from
both instruments were adjusted to standard temperature (273.15 K) and
pressure (1 atm) for this quantitative comparison. The plot is further split
into three columns, following the data grouping done in the previous
subsection, so that the results for the fine-mode-dominated samples, the coarse-mode-containing samples, and the full dataset taken as a whole can be
inspected separately. Each subplot contains an uncertainty envelope that
represents the 95th percentile of hourly resolved theoretical uncertainty values calculated with the error model and inputs presented in
Sect. 2.3 and Table 1. Uncertainties in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M461" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of 4 %, 9 %, and 6 % were
used for the fine-mode-dominated samples, coarse-mode-containing sample, and full dataset, respectively. The uncertainty envelopes are plotted around straight lines (shown as solid orange lines) representing the mean ratios of
the CAPS to MAAP <inline-formula><mml:math id="M462" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values displayed in each subplot. Mean ratios were
chosen rather than standard linear fits to avoid biasing the plotted lines
towards the highest measured values and because averaging to 1 h effectively removed the random noise at the lowest measured values (e.g., as can be seen in Fig. S9).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e6829">Comparison of CAPS PMssa absorption coefficients at 630 nm (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M463" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">630</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and MAAP absorption
coefficients at 637 nm (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M464" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">637</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) for
three different truncation correction scenarios. The three columns represent
different subsets of the dataset, as indicated in the column titles. The
three rows represent the different truncation correction scenarios, as
indicated in the row labels. Panels <bold>(a–c)</bold> display CAPS PMssa
measurements that were corrected using the Mie-based truncation correction
scheme presented in Appendix A with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M465" display="inline"><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> set to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M466" 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> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M467" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> set to 4.7 cm.
Panels <bold>(d–f)</bold> display the same type of data with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M468" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> set to 1 cm. Panels <bold>(g–i)</bold> contain CAPS PMssa measurements corrected
for the truncation of Rayleigh scattering only (i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M469" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). All
data points are colored by the SSA values calculated from the same CAPS
PMssa data shown in each panel. The mean ratios of CAPS PMssa to MAAP
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M470" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are plotted as solid orange lines in each panel. The uncertainty
bands represent the 95th percentiles of theoretical uncertainties
calculated with the error model and inputs described in Sect. 2.3, with
relative uncertainties in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M471" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of 4 %, 9 %, and 6 % for the fine-mode-dominated, coarse-mode-containing, and full datasets, respectively.
Uncertainty in MAAP <inline-formula><mml:math id="M472" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of up to 7 % can be expected based on
previous studies (Sect. 3.1.1): this uncertainty is not displayed for
visual clarity.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/819/2021/amt-14-819-2021-f08.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e6959">The first row of this figure (Fig. 8a, b, and c) displays the CAPS PMssa
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M473" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements that were processed with time-resolved truncation
correction factors calculated with the Mie-theory-based model (Appendix A) with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M474" display="inline"><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> set to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M475" 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> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M476" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to 4.7 cm. This processing results in
generally good agreement between the CAPS PMssa and MAAP <inline-formula><mml:math id="M477" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
measurements. Strong correlation is seen between the two independent
measurements for all three subsets of the data (Fig. 8a, b, and c).
However, on average, the absolute values of the two measurements are
systematically offset by about 20 %. In particular, the mean ratios of
CAPS <inline-formula><mml:math id="M478" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to MAAP <inline-formula><mml:math id="M479" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (i.e., as indicated by the solid orange line
in each sub-figure) varies from 0.78 to 0.81. The precise reasons for these
systematic offsets are not clear. One possibility is the geometry correction
factor applied to the CAPS630b PMssa data (0.73) was inaccurate. However, we
consider it unlikely that this factor alone could fully explain the observed
discrepancy (it would need to be lower by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M480" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % – since
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M481" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is directly proportional to 1/<inline-formula><mml:math id="M482" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, Eq. (6) – and this is
beyond the range of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M483" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values that have so far been measured for
PMssa units; see Sect. 2.2.1). Another possibility is that the MAAP absorption coefficients were systematically overestimated (uncertainties of
up to 7 % can be expected based on previous studies; see Sect. 3.1.1). Regardless of the precise reasons for the systematic offset between the
measurements, it is important to note that the bias between the CAPS PMssa
and MAAP measurements displays no, or only minor, dependence on SSA (which
would be detectable as colour trends across the scatterplots). This indicates that it is likely that the CAPS PMssa <inline-formula><mml:math id="M484" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements have
not been over-corrected for truncation, since such over-correction would
affect the high SSA samples more than the low SSA samples. For these
reasons, we believe that Fig. 8a, b, and c represent an example of
reasonably well-estimated truncation correction. We note that this result was achieved with an <inline-formula><mml:math id="M485" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value of 4.7 cm, which is within the plausible range
for this model input parameter based on the results presented in Sect. 5.</p>
      <p id="d1e7090">The second row of the figure (Fig. 8d, e, and f) displays measurements
corrected with time-resolved <inline-formula><mml:math id="M486" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values calculated with the Mie model
with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M487" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm, which represents the best guess for this parameter based on
the laboratory truncation curve measurements presented in Sect. 5. Under
this truncation correction scenario, a sizeable<?pagebreak page840?> number (17.3 %) of the
hourly averaged coarse-mode-containing CAPS <inline-formula><mml:math id="M488" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements shown in Fig. 8e are negative because <inline-formula><mml:math id="M489" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is physically not possible. In addition, the bias between the CAPS PMssa and
MAAP measurements displays an SSA dependence, most clearly seen in Fig. 8e
and f. Together, these pieces of evidence indicate that the CAPS <inline-formula><mml:math id="M490" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
measurements have been slightly overestimated, leading to absolute
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M491" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values that are biased low. Despite the poor agreement between the
absolute CAPS PMssa and MAAP values for this truncation scenario, it is
noteworthy that the two measurements still correlate well with each other.</p>
      <p id="d1e7164">The third and final row of this figure (Fig. 8g, h, and i) displays
measurements that have been corrected for Rayleigh light scattering only.
This means a constant <inline-formula><mml:math id="M492" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value of 1 was applied to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M493" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
measurements. As shown in Fig. 2, this is the same as simply taking the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M494" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values output by the instrument firmware (i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M495" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), assuming that the firmware contained the correct <inline-formula><mml:math id="M496" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M497" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values. Here it is clear that the truncation correction has now been
underestimated, leading to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M498" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values that are greater than the
corresponding <inline-formula><mml:math id="M499" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-axis values in the first row of the figure. Again, this is
most clearly seen for the coarse-mode-containing group of samples (Fig. 8h). On average, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M500" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values for these samples<?pagebreak page841?> are 1.86 times higher than
the corresponding MAAP measurements.</p>
      <p id="d1e7257">To further examine the sensitivity of CAPS PMssa <inline-formula><mml:math id="M501" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements to
the scattering truncation effect, five additional truncation correction
scenarios are displayed in the five rows of Fig. S15. These results
generally support the results displayed in Fig. 8. Additionally, the
following conclusions can be drawn: (i) for a given <inline-formula><mml:math id="M502" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value (4.7 cm in this
case), variation of the ambient aerosol refractive index between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M503" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</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> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M504" 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> has only a minor effect on CAPS PMssa measured
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M505" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which can be seen by comparing Figs. S15a–f and 8a–c, (ii)
setting <inline-formula><mml:math id="M506" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to 0 cm in the model (the lower limit for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M507" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> that we derived from
Fig. 6) results in substantially overestimated truncation and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M508" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
which in turn leads to a substantial fraction (35.3 %) of negative
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M509" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values for the coarse-mode-containing group (Fig. S15h), and (iii) using constant <inline-formula><mml:math id="M510" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values calculated from campaign-averaged size distributions (the averaged joined SMPS and APS particle size distribution,
Fig. S15j–l; and the averaged SMPS distribution only Fig. S15m–o)
generally leads to poorer results for the coarse-mode-containing samples compared to the corresponding results obtained with time-resolved truncation
correction, but the results for the fine-mode-dominated samples are similar. This latter result is pertinent to field studies where time-resolved
scattering-phase function information is not readily available (either directly or indirectly, e.g., in the form of measured size distributions),
such that a user might be forced to use a constant truncation correction
factor.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS2.SSS5">
  <label>6.2.5</label><title>Summary of the Cabauw results</title>
      <p id="d1e7369">The Cabauw example demonstrates that the biggest hurdle that must be
overcome when measuring atmospheric aerosol absorption coefficients with the
CAPS PMssa is accurate accounting of the scattered light truncation effect.
Unfortunately, there are many potential sources of errors in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M511" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, as
discussed in a general sense in Sect. 2.3. Even if the scattering-phase functions for the atmospheric aerosols being measured were known with high
accuracy, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M512" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> would still carry substantial uncertainty related to the
instrument geometry that must be considered in the truncation calculation,
which we choose to represent through the glass sample tube extension length
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M513" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. This uncertainty can lead to a broad range of different final <inline-formula><mml:math id="M514" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
outcomes, as we have shown by examining the sensitivity of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M515" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to
variation in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M516" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> parameter.</p>
      <p id="d1e7423">Although the uncertainty in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M517" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> cannot be totally avoided, its effect
on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M518" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can be substantially mitigated by restricting datasets to only
those aerosol samples that do not display strongly forward-focused light
scattering. For the Cabauw example, we successfully achieved this by
separately analysing the fine-mode-dominated samples. The results for this group of samples were generally very consistent over the range of truncation
correction scenarios we investigated. Considering the cases shown in Figs. 8
and S15, the correlation coefficients between CAPS PMssa and MAAP
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M519" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> varied between 0.91 and 0.96, while the average ratios of the two
measurements varied from 0.61 to 0.95 (for a sample size of 150). Although
the precise reasons for the systematic offset between the CAPS PMssa and
MAAP measurements are still unclear, the consistency of the results against
the changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M520" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is highly encouraging. This suggests that despite
the remaining truncation uncertainties, the CAPS PMssa can still provide a
reliable <inline-formula><mml:math id="M521" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement for fine-mode-dominated atmospheric aerosols.</p>
      <p id="d1e7473">In contrast, the equivalent results for the coarse-mode-containing samples were more problematic. For this group and for the truncation correction
scenarios shown in Figs. 8 and S15, the correlation coefficients between
CAPS PMssa and MAAP <inline-formula><mml:math id="M522" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> varied between 0.88 and 0.95, while the average
ratios of the two measurements varied widely from 0.03 and 1.86 (again for a
sample size of 150). The truncation problems for coarse-mode-containing samples are 2-fold. Firstly, the scattering-phase functions for such samples are highly asymmetric, with enhanced forward- and backward-scattering, which means the corresponding <inline-formula><mml:math id="M523" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values are
large and more sensitive to small changes in particle size, shape, and/or
composition (as demonstrated with respect to particle size, for example, by
the steepness of the truncation curves displayed in Fig. 6 at particle
diameters greater than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M524" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M525" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m). This sensitivity is
likely responsible for the large variability in the mean ratios of CAPS
PMssa to MAAP <inline-formula><mml:math id="M526" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> that were obtained for the coarse-mode-containing samples across the tested truncation scenarios.</p>
      <p id="d1e7523">Adding to this is a second problem, which is that the Mie-theory-predicted
phase functions are likely to be inaccurate for super-micrometer particles
of complex morphology (e.g., mineral dust aerosols; Curtis et al., 2008). This problem could potentially be overcome by performing truncation
calculations with scattering-phase functions that have been measured directly or calculated with consideration of complex particle morphologies
(e.g., using more sophisticated optical models or potentially with scattering-phase functions parameterized according to the asymmetry
parameter, as inspired by the truncation relationships presented by Liu et
al., 2018). However, further work is required to determine how much such
truncation correction methods could improve the reliability of CAPS PMssa
measurements of aerosols with substantial coarse-mode number fractions.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>7</label><title>Conclusions and recommendations for future studies that use the CAPS PMssa
to measure absorption coefficients</title>
      <p id="d1e7536">We have developed a detailed error model for the CAPS PMssa (Sect. 2.3) and
used this as a framework for assessing the ability of the instrument to
measure aerosol absorption coefficients via the EMS method. In combination with<?pagebreak page842?> empirical data, this error analysis underlines the importance of
minimizing errors in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M527" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M528" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Two key sources of error were
identified as requiring further investigation: uncertainties in the
instrument cross-calibration constant and those related to the truncation correction. Properly accounting for scattered light truncation is the more
difficult problem. Our laboratory measurements demonstrate that the process
of glass tube reflection (Liu et al., 2018) must be considered in the
truncation calculation (Sect. 5). This process was neglected in earlier
truncation models (Onasch et al., 2015). However, uncertainty still remains
regarding the length of the optical cavity that should be considered in the
calculation. Furthermore, if co-located scattering-phase functions cannot be measured directly for input to the calculation, one must carefully consider
the large range of potential errors that can arise in calculated scattering-phase functions. The uncertainties in the cross-calibration constant are less problematic. The cross-calibration constants can be measured with high
precision, but regular measurements are required to identify potential drifts. The required frequency of regular cross-calibrations varies between instruments (Sect. 4).</p>
      <p id="d1e7561">We presented two example field datasets to illustrate the potential and
limitations of using the CAPS PMssa to measure atmospheric aerosol
absorption. The first example from Bologna demonstrates that the CAPS PMssa
can be used to provide much higher time resolution measurements of relative
absorption coefficients than is possible with filter-based absorption
photometers. The second example from Cabauw confirms that a proper
truncation correction is the biggest hurdle to overcome to accurately
measure <inline-formula><mml:math id="M529" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for atmospheric aerosols with the CAPS PMssa. Nevertheless,
we demonstrated that under certain conditions – in this case when fine,
submicrometer aerosols dominated the particle size distributions – the CAPS
PMssa provides consistent EMS measurements over a range of different
truncation scenarios, even for SSA values greater than 0.95.</p>
      <p id="d1e7575">Based on the lessons learned in the present study, we recommend that the
following steps be taken in future studies that use the CAPS PMssa to
measure aerosol absorption with the EMS method. Although our focus has been
on atmospheric measurements, these recommendations are also applicable to
other types of experiments, such as emissions testing and other laboratory
experiments. Furthermore, although our focus has been heavily focused on
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M530" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> where the consequences of errors are the most severe, these
recommendations also apply to CAPS PMssa measurements of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M531" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M532" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and SSA.</p>
      <p id="d1e7611"><list list-type="bullet">
          <list-item>

      <p id="d1e7616">Accurate knowledge of the geometry correction factor, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M533" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for a given
unit is essential for performing accurate absolute measurements. Due to the
manner in which the CAPS PMssa is cross-calibrated, both <inline-formula><mml:math id="M534" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M535" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are directly proportional to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M536" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and relative errors in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M537" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> propagate linearly to errors in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M538" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M539" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Although
its seems that the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M540" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for a given unit is relatively stable over
time, an obvious future improvement to the instrument would be to include a
diagnostic for monitoring <inline-formula><mml:math id="M541" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> during instrument operation (e.g., by measuring and recording the instrument purge flows).</p>
          </list-item>
          <list-item>

      <p id="d1e7702">The periodic scattering and extinction baseline measurements that are
performed by the CAPS PMssa over the course of a measurement campaign should
always be inspected (e.g., Fig. S8), to ensure reliable instrument operation and to check for the occurrence of potential contamination events.
Contamination can drastically reduce the instrument sensitivity and also
alter a unit's cross-calibration constant (Fig. S6).</p>
          </list-item>
          <list-item>

      <p id="d1e7708">Following Pfeifer et al. (2020), we recommend that both the scattering and
extinction coefficients should be reprocessed with linear (or cubic spline)
interpolation between successive baseline periods, rather than relying on
the default firmware method of step-function interpolation. The Cabauw
results at an optical wavelength of 630 nm indicated that such reprocessing
was not important at the hourly time resolution level, since the impact of baseline drifts on shorter timescales cancelled each other out. Nevertheless, the reprocessing should always be done as a precaution against
rapidly changing carrier gas compositions, particularly for lower wavelength
units (e.g., 450 and 530 nm) operating in urban settings or other situations where high NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M542" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations might be encountered (Pfeifer et al.,
2020).</p>
          </list-item>
          <list-item>

      <p id="d1e7723">The scattering cross-calibration constants for some PMssa units can be measured with sufficiently high precision (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M543" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %) and are
stable over time (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M544" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %) for accurate EMS measurements.
However, for other units the performance can be poorer, especially with
respect to stability. Regular cross-calibrations should be performed for each individual unit to determine its behavior in this regard. This
information should be used to inform experimental designs (e.g., required frequency of cross-calibrations for individual PMssa units).</p>
          </list-item>
          <list-item>

      <p id="d1e7749">When calculating scattered light truncation, a model should be used that
includes the process of reflection from the inner surface of the glass
sampling tube. Uncertainty still remains regarding the choice of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M545" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
parameter – the extra path length outside the integrating sphere to be
considered in the truncation calculation. In the absence of a suitable
independent reference, we recommend setting <inline-formula><mml:math id="M546" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to 1 cm, which was the value
that resulted in the best agreement between the measured and modeled
truncation curves displayed in Fig. 6. However, an uncertainty band formed
by varying <inline-formula><mml:math id="M547" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> between 0 and 4.7 cm should be considered. If an independent reference point is available for a particular experiment, these measurements
can be used to assess the most appropriate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M548" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value. The Cabauw dataset
provided an example of<?pagebreak page843?> how this can be done using co-located MAAP absorption
measurements (Sect. 6.2.4).</p>
          </list-item>
          <list-item>

      <p id="d1e7784">Uncertainty in the truncation correction also results from the treatment of
the scattering-phase function.
<list list-type="bullet"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e7789">In the ideal case, the ensemble scattering-phase functions should be obtained directly with co-located polar nephelometer measurements. Future
studies should be performed to determine if such co-located measurements
will enable the CAPS PMssa to reliably measure absorption coefficients even
for aerosols containing high fractions of particles with highly asymmetric
scattering-phase functions (e.g., super-micrometer particles generally, fractal BC, dust).</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e7793">If phase functions have to be calculated or assumed, then the aerosol sample
to be measured should be conditioned to ensure that its scattering-phase function is not too highly forward focused. For the Cabauw example, this was
achieved in the post-processing stage by separately analyzing the fine-mode-dominated samples. It could also be achieved at the measurement stage. For
example, if the light-absorbing particles of interest reside primarily in
the fine mode, a PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M549" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> selective inlet could be placed upstream of a CAPS
PMssa unit to ensure that it only measures sub-micrometer particles. These
approaches will not eliminate the uncertainties in the truncation
calculation, but they can mitigate the influence of those uncertainties on
the precision of the derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M550" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values.</p></list-item></list></p>
          </list-item>
        </list></p>
      <p id="d1e7819">Regarding the final point, the influence of fractal BC aggregate particles
deserves special mention. These particles constitute one of the key types of
absorbing aerosols, especially in field or test-bench measurements of fresh
emissions from combustion sources. Fractal aggregates scatter more light
into near-forward directions relative to equivalently sized spherical
particles, in a manner that cannot be predicted by Mie theory (Liu and
Mishchenko, 2007). Even when more advanced scattering calculations are
performed, the morphology (e.g., primary particle sphere size and fractal dimension) of fractal aggregates is often difficult to constrain. These
effects create the potential for large and systematic errors in calculated
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M551" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values, which sets up a trade-off when measuring aerosols with
high proportions of fractal BC aggregates with the CAPS PMssa. As the
fraction of absorbing fractal BC increases, SSA decreases, which decreases
subtractive error amplification (Fig. 4). However, at the same time, errors
in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M552" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> likely increase due to the shift in the scattering-phase function towards forward directions, which would at least partially offset
the reduction in error due to the lower SSA. Therefore, it should not be
assumed that errors in EMS-derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M553" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> will always be necessarily lower
for aerosols of low SSA. Knowledge of the magnitude and even signs of the
potential errors in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M554" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> due to the presence of absorbing fractal
aggregates is currently very limited and further studies are required to
investigate this issue in more detail.</p><?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><app-group>

<?pagebreak page844?><app id="App1.Ch1.S1">
  <?xmltex \currentcnt{A}?><label>Appendix A</label><title>New theoretical model for calculating scattered light
truncation in the CAPS PMssa monitor, including the process of glass tube reflection</title>
<sec id="App1.Ch1.S1.SS1">
  <label>A1</label><title>General formulation for describing aerosol scattering coefficients measured
by integrating nephelometers</title>
      <p id="d1e7873">An integrating nephelometer measures the integrated particulate scattering
coefficient of an aerosol sample <inline-formula><mml:math id="M555" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (also typically denoted as
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M556" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sp</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) at a given wavelength <inline-formula><mml:math id="M557" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. An ideal integrating
nephelometer would be sensitive to light scattered in all possible
directions. Formally, if <inline-formula><mml:math id="M558" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M559" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) (m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M560" 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> sr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M561" 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>)
was a function describing the distribution of scattered light of wavelength
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M562" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as a function of solid angle <inline-formula><mml:math id="M563" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for some aerosol, an ideal
integrating nephelometer would collect light scattered over all 4<inline-formula><mml:math id="M564" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
stearadians with equal sensitivity,</p>
      <p id="d1e7973"><disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E7" content-type="numbered"><label>A1</label><mml:math id="M565" display="block"><mml:mtable columnspacing="1em" rowspacing="0.2ex" class="split" displaystyle="true" columnalign="right left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∫</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∫</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∫</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M566" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M567" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">φ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> represent the polar and azimuthal scattering
angles, respectively, in a polar coordinate system. If the scattering
process is rotationally symmetric with respect to the azimuthal coordinate
– which is true for the case considered here of spherically homogeneous
particles illuminated by unpolarized light (Mishchenko et al., 2002) – the
integral over <inline-formula><mml:math id="M568" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">φ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> equals 2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M569" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and</p>
      <p id="d1e8111"><disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E8" content-type="numbered"><label>A2</label><mml:math id="M570" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∫</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e8165">In practice, real integrating nephelometers are unable to collect some
fraction of near-forward and near-backward scattered light due to physical
design limitations. This issue is known as scattered light truncation. If
truncation is not accounted for then particulate scattering coefficients
measured with an integrating nephelometer will be systematically
underestimated. In the Rayleigh regime (particle diameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M571" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>≪</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the
wavelength of light <inline-formula><mml:math id="M572" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), truncation is independent of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M573" 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> and
particle shape. In the Mie regime (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M574" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), truncation is
a complicated function of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M575" 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> and particle shape, with larger particles
tending to produce larger truncation as the fraction of light scattered in
forward directions with small <inline-formula><mml:math id="M576" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> increases.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="App1.Ch1.S1.SS2">
  <label>A2</label><title>Calculating scattered light truncation in the CAPS PMssa</title>
      <p id="d1e8241">The CAPS PMssa measures particulate scattering coefficients at a single
wavelength <inline-formula><mml:math id="M577" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> with an integrating nephelometer of the reciprocal,
integrating sphere design (Heintzenberg and Charlson, 1996). The integrating
sphere has a nominal diameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M578" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm. Aerosol particles with number size
distribution <inline-formula><mml:math id="M579" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">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> travel through the sphere along a central axis in
a horizontal, cylindrical glass tube of nominal diameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M580" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm. Light
scattered from the aerosol ensemble is detected with a photomultiplier tube
(PMT) placed at one point on the integrating sphere.</p>
      <p id="d1e8296">To correct for the scattered light truncation effect in the CAPS PMssa we
apply a truncation correction factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M581" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to the measured scattering
coefficients (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M582" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), as discussed in Sect. 2.2.3 of the main
text. We define <inline-formula><mml:math id="M583" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as the normalized ratio of the true integrated
scattering coefficient, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M584" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">true</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (i.e., what would be measured with an
ideal integrating nephelometer) to the truncation-affected scattering
coefficient that is actually accessible to measurement by the instrument,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M585" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Repeating Eq. (4) from the main text for convenience,</p>
      <p id="d1e8364"><disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E9" content-type="numbered"><label>A3</label><mml:math id="M586" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">true</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">true</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">true</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e8474">The normalization factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M587" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is required to represent the fact
that some scattered light truncation is already implicitly accounted for in
the CAPS PMssa cross-calibration constant. For the recommended case of cross-calibration with Rayleigh scatterers (i.e., Eq. 3), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M588" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represents
the truncation of the Rayleigh scattered light from the calibration aerosol.</p>
      <p id="d1e8500">The coefficients <inline-formula><mml:math id="M589" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">true</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M590" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Eq. (A3) can be
calculated using specific versions of the general Eq. (A1) for calculating
aerosol scattering coefficients <inline-formula><mml:math id="M591" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Following on from
earlier integrating nephelometry studies (Anderson et al., 1996;
Heintzenberg and Charlson, 1996; Moosmüller and Arnott, 2003; Müller
et al., 2011b; Peñaloza, 1999), we express this equation as a function of the scattering function of the particle population <inline-formula><mml:math id="M592" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the light collection efficiency of the integrating sphere <inline-formula><mml:math id="M593" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the angular sensitivity function <inline-formula><mml:math id="M594" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
the combined optical system:</p>
      <p id="d1e8608"><disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E10" content-type="numbered"><label>A4</label><mml:math id="M595" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∫</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e8676">In this equation aerosol properties are represented by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M596" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and instrument properties by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M597" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M598" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (which are assumed to be independent of the azimuthal scattering
angle <inline-formula><mml:math id="M599" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">φ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>). Examples of each of these three functions are shown in
Fig. 3 of the main text for the specific cases of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M600" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">true</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M601" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <?pagebreak page845?><p id="d1e8776">To calculate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M602" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, we assume that we are measuring an
ensemble of spherical, homogeneous particles. In this case,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M603" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is given by</p>
      <p id="d1e8822"><disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E11" content-type="numbered"><label>A5</label><mml:math id="M604" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∫</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∞</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∞</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><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:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">log</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">log</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M605" display="inline"><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the particle size parameter (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M606" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M607" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M608" display="inline"><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M609" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is the intensity-related scattering matrix
element of a single particle with size parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M610" display="inline"><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and complex refractive
index <inline-formula><mml:math id="M611" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Eq. 3.16 in Bohren and Huffman, 1998). For unpolarized
incident light, like that used in the CAPS PMssa, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M612" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> describes the
angular distribution of scattered light intensity. In this work we
calculated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M613" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with Mie theory (i.e., assuming homogenous spherical
particles). Specifically, we calculated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M614" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with modified version of
Bohren and Huffman's Fortran routine (bhmie.f; Bohren and Huffman, 1998) by Bruce T. Draine (available at: <uri>https://www.astro.princeton.edu/~draine/scattering.html</uri>, last access 14 May 2020). We further modified this
routine to accept programmatic inputs and outputs. Alternative forms of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M615" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> could be calculated with optical models that are
not restricted to the assumption of spherical, homogenous particles, or
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M616" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> could be measured directly with a polar
nephelometer.</p>
      <p id="d1e9111">For an ideal integrating nephelometer, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M617" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(i.e., Eq. A2). Within the CAPS PMssa integrating sphere, no baffle is
employed in front of the PMT to prevent the detection of directly scattered
light (i.e., light that has not undergone any reflections from the interior surface of the sphere). This could potentially lead to deviations from the
ideal angular sensitivity condition. However, the fraction of the interior
surface area of the sphere taken up by the PMT is only 0.6 %, and
calculations of the sphere properties indicate that the PMT light detection
efficiency is independent of scattering angle to within 1 % (Onasch et
al., 2015). As a result, Onasch et al. (2015) assumed that the ideal
condition of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M618" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is applicable for the
CAPS PMssa. We make the same assumption here.</p>
      <p id="d1e9149">In other formulations of Eq. (A4), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M619" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is typically expressed
together with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M620" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in a single function (e.g., Anderson et al. (1996) refer to this single function as “<inline-formula><mml:math id="M621" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>”, while
Müller et al. (2011b) use “<inline-formula><mml:math id="M622" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>”). We reformulate this
function as two separate components to highlight the importance of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M623" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which describes the efficiency with which a given
instrument can collect light. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M624" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can vary between
0 (no light collected) and 1 (all light collected). Considering <inline-formula><mml:math id="M625" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> explicitly allows for the simple and transparent
introduction of additional physical processes into light-scattering calculations (e.g., reflection from the glass tube containing the aerosol sample, as discussed below). Additionally, comparison of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M626" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> curves of different instruments provides a clear and
intuitive comparison of the abilities of the instruments to collect
scattered light.</p>
      <p id="d1e9295">Within this formulation the notion that an ideal integrating nephelometer
collects scattered light over all possible directions is expressed by the
condition <inline-formula><mml:math id="M627" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ideal</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M628" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rad</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (as shown in Fig. 3). Scattered light truncation in
real integrating nephelometers can be expressed by setting <inline-formula><mml:math id="M629" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 0 at angles where light is undetected. For example, for the
specific case of the well-characterized TSI 3563 cell-direct integrating
nephelometer (TSI Inc., St. Paul, MN, USA),</p>
      <p id="d1e9361"><disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E12" content-type="numbered"><label>A6</label><mml:math id="M630" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TSI</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3563</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close="" open="{"><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="left left left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">if</mml:mi></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">if</mml:mi></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">or</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M631" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M632" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">170</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
are referred to as the truncation angles of the instrument (Anderson and
Ogren, 1998). For integrating sphere-type nephelometers like the one used in the CAPS PMssa, truncation occurs because scattered light escapes through
the aerosol sample entry and exit apertures in the sphere, as shown by the
example truncation angles <inline-formula><mml:math id="M633" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M634" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Fig. 1. In
this case, the truncation angles depend on particle position along the
longitudinal axis of the glass aerosol sample tube (Onasch et al., 2015),
which is indicated as the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M635" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> dimension in Fig. 1. It is also possible for particles beyond the boundaries of the integrating sphere to contribute to
the measured scattering signal by scattering light into the sphere (Varma et
al., 2003). In the CAPS PMssa, extra path lengths in the range from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M636" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 4.7 cm outside the sphere boundaries must be considered. The upper
limit of this range is determined by the fixed positions of the aerosol flow
tubing and ports in the optical cavity. Considering the instrument geometry
shown in Fig. 1, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M637" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-dependent truncation angles in the CAPS PMssa can be expressed as</p>
      <p id="d1e9544"><disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E13" content-type="numbered"><label>A7</label><mml:math id="M638" display="block"><mml:mtable columnspacing="1em" rowspacing="0.2ex" class="split" displaystyle="true" columnalign="right left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="{" close=""><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">tan</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">for</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>∈</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close="]" open="["><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi>tan⁡</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">for</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>∈</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close="]" open="["><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="{" close=""><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi>tan⁡</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">for</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>∈</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>tan⁡</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">for</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>∈</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e9866">Here it is assumed that the collimated light beam circulating in the optical
cavity is confined along the central <inline-formula><mml:math id="M639" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis of the instrument with negligible width relative to the diameter of the glass sampling tube, and
that multiple scattering effects from particles outside the collimated beam
can be neglected.</p>
      <?pagebreak page846?><p id="d1e9876">Given these <inline-formula><mml:math id="M640" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-dependent truncations angles, and assuming that there is no
scattered light reflection from the glass sampling tube (“no-refl”), the
light collection efficiency function at a particular <inline-formula><mml:math id="M641" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> position (i.e., “spot”) in the CAPS PMssa optical cavity can be expressed as</p>
      <p id="d1e9894"><disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E14" content-type="numbered"><label>A8</label><mml:math id="M642" display="block"><mml:mtable columnspacing="1em" class="split" rowspacing="0.2ex" displaystyle="true" columnalign="right left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:msubsup><mml:mtext>_spot</mml:mtext><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">no</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">refl</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close="" open="{"><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="left left left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">if</mml:mi></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">if</mml:mi></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">or</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e10033">The subscript “meas” indicates that this is a function pertaining
specifically to the CAPS PMssa (as opposed an ideal integrating
nephelometer), following the notation in Eq. (A3).</p>
      <p id="d1e10036">In addition to highlighting the truncation angles, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M643" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> formulation
also allows explicit introduction of additional physical processes that can
reduce the probability of scattered light detection below 1 (which can be a
function of both <inline-formula><mml:math id="M644" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M645" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>). In particular, we consider the process of
reflection from the CAPS PMssa glass sampling tube (Fig. 1). This process is
included in the radiative transfer theory model of Liu et al. (2018), but
not the original scattered light truncation model presented by Onasch et al. (2015). To express this process in an <inline-formula><mml:math id="M646" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> function we first calculate
the probability <inline-formula><mml:math id="M647" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> that light at an angle of incidence of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M648" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is reflected from the interface between the glass sampling
tube and air (with refractive indices <inline-formula><mml:math id="M649" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">glass</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M650" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively)
using the Fresnel equations for unpolarized incident light:</p>
      <p id="d1e10120"><disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E15" content-type="numbered"><label>A9</label><mml:math id="M651" display="block"><mml:mtable columnspacing="1em" rowspacing="0.2ex" class="split" displaystyle="true" columnalign="right left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">glass</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced close="" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close="|" open="|"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">glass</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">glass</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">glass</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">glass</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mfenced close=")" open=""><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close="|" open="|"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">glass</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">glass</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">glass</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">glass</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e10411">In the present study we assume <inline-formula><mml:math id="M652" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">glass</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M653" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e10456">We calculate the number of reflections <inline-formula><mml:math id="M654" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> that light would need to undergo to
exit the integrating sphere when scattered at an angle <inline-formula><mml:math id="M655" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from a
particle at position <inline-formula><mml:math id="M656" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as the floor of the ratio of the distance of the
particle from a sphere exit (along the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M657" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> dimension), to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M658" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> component of the distance that the light would travel between each reflection event from the
glass tube. An extra term is added to the numerator of this ratio to reflect
the assumption that the particle lies along the center line of the sampling tube:</p>
      <p id="d1e10495"><disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E16" content-type="numbered"><label>A10</label><mml:math id="M659" display="block"><mml:mtable columnspacing="1em" class="split" rowspacing="0.2ex" displaystyle="true" columnalign="right left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="{" close=""><mml:mrow><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="{" close=""><mml:mrow><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="left left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close="⌋" open="⌊"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mfrac><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mi>tan⁡</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>tan⁡</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">if</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">if</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">if</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="{" close=""><mml:mrow><mml:mtable class="array" columnalign="left left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="⌊" close="⌋"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mfrac><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mi>tan⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>tan⁡</mml:mi></mml:mfrac><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">if</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">if</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">if</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e10738">Equations (A9) and (A10) are calculated over the scattering angle range
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M660" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and then combined to calculate a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M661" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>- and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M662" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-dependent probability function that represents the total fraction of light
reflected out of the integrating sphere. We term this function
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M663" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">total</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>:</p>
      <p id="d1e10782"><disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E17" content-type="numbered"><label>A11</label><mml:math id="M664" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">total</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">glass</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">glass</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e10863">For a particular <inline-formula><mml:math id="M665" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> position in the optical cavity, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M666" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">total</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can be combined with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M667" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:msubsup><mml:mtext>_spot</mml:mtext><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">no</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">refl</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as defined in Eq. (A8) in order to calculate a light collection
efficiency function that takes account of the process of glass tube
reflection:</p>
      <p id="d1e10917"><disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E18" content-type="numbered"><label>A12</label><mml:math id="M668" display="block"><mml:mtable class="split" rowspacing="0.2ex" columnspacing="1em" displaystyle="true" columnalign="right left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:msubsup><mml:mtext>_spot</mml:mtext><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">refl</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:msubsup><mml:mtext>_spot</mml:mtext><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">no</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">refl</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">total</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e11001">Figure S16 displays example <inline-formula><mml:math id="M669" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M670" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M671" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">total</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> curves as a
function of scattering angle <inline-formula><mml:math id="M672" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for the case of a particle in the
center of the optical cavity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M673" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Figure 3 displays example <inline-formula><mml:math id="M674" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:msubsup><mml:mtext>_spot</mml:mtext><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">refl</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M675" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:msubsup><mml:mtext>_spot</mml:mtext><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">no</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">refl</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> curves (black and blue solid lines, respectively)
for five different positions in the cavity spanning the range from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M676" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
to 6 cm.</p>
      <p id="d1e11099">A single, integrated light collection efficiency curve <inline-formula><mml:math id="M677" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can be generated for use in Eq. (A4) by integrating an <inline-formula><mml:math id="M678" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mtext>_spot</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> function over all possible <inline-formula><mml:math id="M679" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> positions. That is,</p>
      <p id="d1e11137"><disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E19" content-type="numbered"><label>A13</label><mml:math id="M680" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mstyle scriptlevel="+1"><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle scriptlevel="+1"><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:munderover><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mtext>_spot</mml:mtext><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e11228">This operation assumes that the aerosol particles in the instrument are
homogeneously distributed along the central <inline-formula><mml:math id="M681" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis of the glass sampling tube, which is reasonable assumption to make for the aerosol number
concentrations typically observed in the atmosphere (Qian et al., 2012). For
concentrations much lower than this longer averaging times could<?pagebreak page847?> be used to
avoid any noise issues related to inhomogeneity. Example integrated light
collection efficiency curves are displayed Fig. 3 for the cases where glass
tube reflection is considered (black curve; “with glass reflection”) and is
not considered (blue curve; “no glass reflection”). In the terminology
presented in this Appendix, these are the curves <inline-formula><mml:math id="M682" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">refl</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">glass</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M683" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">no</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">refl</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively,
obtained by integrating the corresponding <inline-formula><mml:math id="M684" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mtext>_spot</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> curves in Eq. (A13). The
extra dependencies of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M685" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">refl</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M686" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">glass</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M687" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
come from the dependence of this function on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M688" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">total</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Eq. A12).</p>
      <p id="d1e11352">All of the elements are now in place to use Eq. (A3) to calculate the
truncation correction factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M689" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for some aerosol with scattering-phase function <inline-formula><mml:math id="M690" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M691" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">true</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is calculated by
substituting <inline-formula><mml:math id="M692" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M693" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M694" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ideal</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> into Eq. (A4). <inline-formula><mml:math id="M695" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is calculated in the same manner,
except <inline-formula><mml:math id="M696" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is set to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M697" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">refl</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">glass</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, if one wishes to account for the process of glass tube
reflection, or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M698" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">no</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">refl</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> if one wishes
to neglect this process. The normalization factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M699" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
calculated in a similar way using the Rayleigh scattering-phase function (Eq. 5.6 in Bohren and Huffman, 1998) and again assuming <inline-formula><mml:math id="M700" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Specifically,</p>
      <p id="d1e11601"><disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S1.E20" content-type="numbered"><label>A14</label><mml:math id="M701" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rayleigh</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∫</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∫</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>cos⁡</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">η</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ideal</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
</sec>
</app>

<app id="App1.Ch1.S2">
  <?xmltex \currentcnt{B}?><label>Appendix B</label><title>Error model for the CAPS PMssa</title>
      <p id="d1e11702">To build an error model for the CAPS PMssa, we begin with Eq. (2) from the main text, which is repeated here for convenience.</p>
      <p id="d1e11705"><disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S2.E21" content-type="numbered"><label>B1</label><mml:math id="M702" display="block"><mml:mtable class="split" rowspacing="0.2ex" columnspacing="1em" displaystyle="true" columnalign="right left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sample</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sample</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e11812">Individual uncertainty estimates for the seven parameters on the right-hand side of this equation are given in Table 1. We assume that all of these
errors are uncorrelated with each other. This is not generally true for the
errors in the geometry correction factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M703" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and the cross-calibration constant <inline-formula><mml:math id="M704" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, since <inline-formula><mml:math id="M705" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is directly proportional to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M706" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (Eq. 3; note that this is not the case for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M707" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, since <inline-formula><mml:math id="M708" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is defined
as a normalized ratio). However, in the specific case of a cross-calibrated
instrument, we take the errors in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M709" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to represent uncertainties
arising from (i.e., precision) and after (i.e., drift) a cross-calibration measurement. This part of the overall uncertainty in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M710" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is
uncorrelated with the error in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M711" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e11879">The error model is then constructed by applying the standard rules of error
propagation to Eq. (B1), given the assumption of uncorrelated errors:</p>
      <p id="d1e11883"><disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S2.E22" content-type="numbered"><label>B2</label><mml:math id="M712" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">abs</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        where</p>
      <p id="d1e11930"><disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S2.E23" content-type="numbered"><label>B3</label><mml:math id="M713" display="block"><mml:mtable columnspacing="1em" rowspacing="0.2ex" class="split" displaystyle="true" columnalign="right left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sample</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sample</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>
        and
          <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S2.E24" content-type="numbered"><label>B4</label><mml:math id="M714" display="block"><mml:mtable columnspacing="1em" class="split" rowspacing="0.2ex" displaystyle="true" columnalign="right left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><?xmltex \hack{\hbox\bgroup\fontsize{8.2}{8.2}\selectfont$\displaystyle}?><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sample</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sample</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><?xmltex \hack{$\egroup}?><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e12188">The same quantities can also be used to calculate errors in SSA (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M715" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measured by the CAPS PMssa:</p>
      <p id="d1e12213"><disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.S2.E25" content-type="numbered"><label>B5</label><mml:math id="M716" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SSA</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SSA</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sca</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p><?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?>
</app>
  </app-group><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e12282">The data archive for this paper is available on Zenodo: <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4337092" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.4337092</ext-link> (Modini et al., 2020).</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e12288">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-819-2021-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-819-2021-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e12298">RLM, JCC, and MGB developed the error model based on the theoretical
description of the instrument. RLM developed the new truncation model
presented in Appendix A together with MGB. RLM, BB, MI, and MGB designed
and/or performed the laboratory measurements of cross-calibration constants and truncation values. RLM and FL calculated truncation values to compare
with the laboratory measurements. RLM and MGB designed the Bologna mobile
experiment. MB and REP took the measurements and analyzed the raw data
during the Bologna campaign. JCC and TM took the measurements and analyzed
the raw data during the Melpitz campaign. JSH, MMM, KE, and MGB designed the
Cabauw experiment. JSH coordinated the Cabauw campaign. RLM and PF took the
measurements and analyzed the raw data during the Cabauw campaign. RLM
performed the data analysis and interpretation and wrote the manuscript with
input from JCC and MGB. All the co-authors reviewed and commented on the manuscript.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e12304">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e12310">We would like to thank Nicolas Bukowiecki, Birgit Wehner, Angela Marinoni,
and Francisco Navas-Guzmán for their coordination support during the
Melpitz, Bologna, and Payerne campaigns and Martina Burger for her support during the laboratory experiments. Although the Swiss Government contributed to the funding, the opinions expressed and arguments
employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Swiss
Government.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e12315">This research has been supported by the “Metrology for light absorption by atmospheric aerosols” project funded by the European Metrology Programme for Innovation and Research (EMPIR grant no. 16ENV02 Black Carbon). The Swiss partners of this project are funded by the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (grant no. 17.00115, BlackC). Rob L. Modini, Michele Bertò, Rosaria E. Pileci, and Martin Gysel-Beer received financial support from the European Research Council (grant no. ERC-CoG-615922-BLACARAT). Transnational access to the Cabauw, Melpitz, and Bologna sites was supported by the H2020 European Research Council project ACTRIS-2 – Aerosols, Clouds, and Trace gases Research InfraStructure (EU H2020–INFRAIA–2014–2015, grant no. 654109). Joel C. Corbin and Fengshan Liu received financial support from the Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Research and Development (grant nos. EIP-EU-TR3-04A and TR3-3B03-0002B).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e12321">This paper was edited by Mingjin Tang and reviewed by Timothy Onasch and one anonymous referee.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Anderson, T. L. and Ogren, J. A.: Determining Aerosol Radiative Properties
Using the TSI 3563 Integrating Nephelometer, Aerosol Sci. Tech.,
29, 57–69, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829808965551" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786829808965551</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Anderson, T. L., Covert, D. S., Marshall, S. F., Laucks, M. L., Charlson, R.
J., Waggoner, A. P., Ogren, J. A., Caldow, R., Holm, R. L., Quant, F. R.,
Sem, G. J., Wiedensohler, A., Ahlquist, N. A., and Bates, T. S.: Performance
Characteristics of a High-Sensitivity, Three-Wavelength, Total
Scatter/Backscatter Nephelometer, J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 13,
967–986, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(1996)013&lt;0967:PCOAHS&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0426(1996)013&lt;0967:PCOAHS&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Arnott, P. W., Moosmüller, H., Fred Rogers, C., Jin, T., and Bruch, R.:
Photoacoustic spectrometer for measuring light absorption by aerosol:
instrument description, Atmos. Environ., 33, 2845–2852,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(98)00361-6" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S1352-2310(98)00361-6</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Biskos, G., Paulsen, D., Russell, L. M., Buseck, P. R., and Martin, S. T.: Prompt deliquescence and efflorescence of aerosol nanoparticles, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 4633–4642, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-4633-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-4633-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Bohren, C. and Huffman, D. R.: Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small
Particles, edited by: Bohren, C. and Huffman, D. R., Wiley Science Paperback
Series, Weinheim, Germany, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bond, T. C., Anderson, T. L., and Campbell, D.: Calibration and
Intercomparison of Filter-Based Measurements of Visible Light Absorption by
Aerosols, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 30, 582–600,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/027868299304435" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/027868299304435</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bond, T. C., Doherty, S. J., Fahey, D. W., Forster, P. M., Berntsen, T.,
DeAngelo, B. J., Flanner, M. G., Ghan, S., Kärcher, B., Koch, D., Kinne,
S., Kondo, Y., Quinn, P. K., Sarofim, M. C., Schultz, M. G., Schulz, M.,
Venkataraman, C., Zhang, H., Zhang, S., Bellouin, N., Guttikunda, S. K.,
Hopke, P. K., Jacobson, M. Z., Kaiser, J. W., Klimont, Z., Lohmann, U.,
Schwarz, J. P., Shindell, D., Storelvmo, T., Warren, S. G., and Zender, C.
S.: Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific
assessment, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118,
5380–5552, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50171" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jgrd.50171</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bukowiecki, N., Dommen, J., Prévôt, A. S. H., Richter, R.,
Weingartner, E., and Baltensperger, U.: A mobile pollutant measurement
laboratory – measuring gas phase and aerosol ambient concentrations with
high spatial and temporal resolution, Atmos. Environ., 36,
5569–5579, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00694-5" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00694-5</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Cappa, C., Kotamarthi, R., Sedlacek, A., Flynn, C., Lewis, E., McComiskey,
A., and Riemer, N.: Absorbing Aerosols Workshop Report, US Department of
Energy, Climate and Environmental Sciences Division, Brookhaven National Lab. (BNL), Upton, NY, USA, BNL-112462-2016, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chen, D., Zhao, Y., Lyu, R., Wu, R., Dai, L., Zhao, Y., Chen, F., Zhang, J.,
Yu, H., and Guan, M.: Seasonal and spatial variations of optical properties
of light absorbing carbon and its influencing factors in a typical polluted
city i<?pagebreak page849?>n Yangtze River Delta, China, Atmos. Environ., 199, 45–54,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.11.022" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.11.022</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Corbin, J. C. and Gysel-Beer, M.: Detection of tar brown carbon with a single particle soot photometer (SP2), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 15673–15690, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-15673-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-15673-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Corbin, J. C., Pieber, S. M., Czech, H., Zanatta, M., Jakobi, G.,
Massabò, D., Orasche, J., El Haddad, I., Mensah, A. A., Stengel, B.,
Drinovec, L., Mocnik, G., Zimmermann, R., Prévôt, A. S. H., and
Gysel, M.: Brown and Black Carbon Emitted by a Marine Engine Operated on
Heavy Fuel Oil and Distillate Fuels: Optical Properties, Size Distributions,
and Emission Factors, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123,
6175–6195, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD027818" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2017JD027818</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Curtis, D. B., Meland, B., Aycibin, M., Arnold, N. P., Grassian, V. H.,
Young, M. A., and Kleiber, P. D.: A laboratory investigation of light
scattering from representative components of mineral dust aerosol at a
wavelength of 550 nm, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, D08210, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009387" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007JD009387</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dastanpour, R., Momenimovahed, A., Thomson, K., Olfert, J., and Rogak, S.:
Variation of the optical properties of soot as a function of particle mass,
Carbon, 124, 201–211, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2017.07.005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.carbon.2017.07.005</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dubovik, O., Holben, B., Eck, T. F., Smirnov, A., Kaufman, Y. J., King, M.
D., Tanré, D., and Slutsker, I.: Variability of Absorption and Optical
Properties of Key Aerosol Types Observed in Worldwide Locations, J. Atmos.
Sci., 59, 590–608, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059&lt;0590:VOAAOP&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059&lt;0590:VOAAOP&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Espinosa, W. R., Martins, J. V., Remer, L. A., Puthukkudy, A., Orozco, D., and Dolgos, G.: In situ measurements of angular-dependent light scattering by aerosols over the contiguous United States, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 3737–3754, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-3737-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-3737-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</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>Forestieri, S. D., Helgestad, T. M., Lambe, A. T., Renbaum-Wolff, L., Lack, D. A., Massoli, P., Cross, E. S., Dubey, M. K., Mazzoleni, C., Olfert, J. S., Sedlacek III, A. J., Freedman, A., Davidovits, P., Onasch, T. B., and Cappa, C. D.: Measurement and modeling of the multiwavelength optical properties of uncoated flame-generated soot, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 12141–12159, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-12141-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-12141-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gerber, H. E.: Portable cell for simultaneously measuring the coefficients
of light scattering and extinction for ambient aerosols, Appl. Opt.,
18, 1009–1014, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.18.001009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/AO.18.001009</ext-link>, 1979.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Han, T., Xu, W., Li, J., Freedman, A., Zhao, J., Wang, Q., Chen, C., Zhang,
Y., Wang, Z., Fu, P., Liu, X., and Sun, Y.: Aerosol optical properties
measurements by a CAPS single scattering albedo monitor: Comparisons between
summer and winter in Beijing, China, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 2513–2526, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025762" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016JD025762</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hansen, A. D. A., Rosen, H., and Novakov, T.: Carbonaceous Particles in the
Atmosphere 1983 The aethalometer – An instrument for the real-time
measurement of optical absorption by aerosol particles, Sci. Total
Environ., 36, 191–196, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(84)90265-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0048-9697(84)90265-1</ext-link>, 1984.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Haywood, J. M. and Shine, K. P.: The effect of anthropogenic sulfate and
soot aerosol on the clear sky planetary radiation budget, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 22, 603–606, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/95GL00075" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/95GL00075</ext-link>, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Heintzenberg, J. and Charlson, R. J.: Design and Applications of the
Integrating Nephelometer: A Review, J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 13,
987–1000, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(1996)013&lt;0987:DAAOTI&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0426(1996)013&lt;0987:DAAOTI&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Johnson, T. J., Irwin, M., Symonds, J. P. R., Olfert, J. S., and Boies, A.
M.: Measuring aerosol size distributions with the aerodynamic aerosol
classifier, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 52, 655–665,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2018.1440063" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786826.2018.1440063</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kebabian, P. L., Robinson, W. A., and Freedman, A.: Optical extinction
monitor using cw cavity enhanced detection, Rev. Sci.
Instrum., 78, 063102, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2744223" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1063/1.2744223</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Koch, D. and Del Genio, A. D.: Black carbon semi-direct effects on cloud cover: review and synthesis, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 7685–7696, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-7685-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-7685-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kreher, K., Van Roozendael, M., Hendrick, F., Apituley, A., Dimitropoulou, E., Frieß, U., Richter, A., Wagner, T., Lampel, J., Abuhassan, N., Ang, L., Anguas, M., Bais, A., Benavent, N., Bösch, T., Bognar, K., Borovski, A., Bruchkouski, I., Cede, A., Chan, K. L., Donner, S., Drosoglou, T., Fayt, C., Finkenzeller, H., Garcia-Nieto, D., Gielen, C., Gómez-Martín, L., Hao, N., Henzing, B., Herman, J. R., Hermans, C., Hoque, S., Irie, H., Jin, J., Johnston, P., Khayyam Butt, J., Khokhar, F., Koenig, T. K., Kuhn, J., Kumar, V., Liu, C., Ma, J., Merlaud, A., Mishra, A. K., Müller, M., Navarro-Comas, M., Ostendorf, M., Pazmino, A., Peters, E., Pinardi, G., Pinharanda, M., Piters, A., Platt, U., Postylyakov, O., Prados-Roman, C., Puentedura, O., Querel, R., Saiz-Lopez, A., Schönhardt, A., Schreier, S. F., Seyler, A., Sinha, V., Spinei, E., Strong, K., Tack, F., Tian, X., Tiefengraber, M., Tirpitz, J.-L., van Gent, J., Volkamer, R., Vrekoussis, M., Wang, S., Wang, Z., Wenig, M., Wittrock, F., Xie, P. H., Xu, J., Yela, M., Zhang, C., and Zhao, X.: Intercomparison of NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M717" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M718" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M719" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and HCHO slant column measurements by MAX-DOAS and zenith-sky UV–visible spectrometers during CINDI-2, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 2169–2208, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-2169-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-13-2169-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lack, D. A., Lovejoy, E. R., Baynard, T., Pettersson, A., and Ravishankara,
A. R.: Aerosol Absorption Measurement using Photoacoustic Spectroscopy:
Sensitivity, Calibration, and Uncertainty Developments, Aerosol Sci.
Tech., 40, 697–708, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820600803917" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786820600803917</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lack, D. A., Moosmüller, H., McMeeking, G. R., Chakrabarty, R. K., and
Baumgardner, D.: Characterizing elemental, equivalent black, and refractory
black carbon aerosol particles: a review of techniques, their limitations
and uncertainties, Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 406, 99–122,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-013-7402-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00216-013-7402-3</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Laskin, A., Laskin, J., and Nizkorodov, S. A.: Chemistry of Atmospheric Brown
Carbon, Chem. Rev., 115, 4335–4382, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/cr5006167" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/cr5006167</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lewis, E. K., Moehnke, C. J., and Manzanares, C. E.: Phase shift cavity ring
down and FT-VIS measurements of C-H (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M720" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>v<inline-formula><mml:math id="M721" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5<?pagebreak page850?>) vibrational overtone
absorptions, Chem. Phys. Lett., 394, 25–31,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2004.06.102" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.cplett.2004.06.102</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Liu, F., Snelling, D. R., Thomson, K. A., and Smallwood, G. J.: Estimate of
scattering truncation in the cavity attenuated phase shift PMSSA monitor
using radiative transfer theory, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 52,
588–596, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2018.1437891" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786826.2018.1437891</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Liu, L. and Mishchenko, M. I.: Scattering and radiative properties of
complex soot and soot-containing aggregate particles, J.
Quant. Spectrosc. Ra., 106, 262–273,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2007.01.020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jqsrt.2007.01.020</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Massoli, P., Kebabian, P. L., Onasch, T. B., Hills, F. B., and Freedman, A.:
Aerosol Light Extinction Measurements by Cavity Attenuated Phase Shift
(CAPS) Spectroscopy: Laboratory Validation and Field Deployment of a Compact
Aerosol Particle Extinction Monitor, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 44,
428–435, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786821003716599" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786821003716599</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Mishchenko, M. I., Travis, L. D. and Lacis, A. A.: Scattering, Absorption, and Emission of Light by Small Particles, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Modini, R. L., Corbin, J. C., Brem, B. T., Irwin, M., Bertò, M., Pileci, R. E., Fetfatzis, P., Eleftheriadis, K., Henzing, B., Moerman, M. M., Liu, F., Müller, T., and Gyesl-Beer, M.: Data archive for the peer-reviewed journal article “Detailed characterization of the CAPS single scattering albedo monitor (CAPS PMssa) as a field-deployable instrument for measuring aerosol light absorption with the extinction-minus-scattering method”, Zenodo, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4337092" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.4337092</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Moosmüller, H. and Arnott, W. P.: Folded Jamin interferometer: a stable
instrument for refractive-index measurements, Opt. Lett., 21,
438–440, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.21.000438" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/OL.21.000438</ext-link>, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Moosmüller, H. and Arnott, W. P.: Angular truncation errors in
integrating nephelometry, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 74,
3492–3501, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1581355" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1063/1.1581355</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Moosmüller, H., Varma, R., and Arnott, W. P.: Cavity Ring-Down and
Cavity-Enhanced Detection Techniques for the Measurement of Aerosol
Extinction, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 39, 30–39,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290903880" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/027868290903880</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Moosmüller, H., Chakrabarty, R. K., and Arnott, W. P.: Aerosol light
absorption and its measurement: A review, J. Quant.
Spectrosc. Ra., 110, 844–878,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2009.02.035" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jqsrt.2009.02.035</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Moteki, N., Adachi, K., Ohata, S., Yoshida, A., Harigaya, T., Koike, M., and
Kondo, Y.: Anthropogenic iron oxide aerosols enhance atmospheric heating,
Nat. Commun., 8, 15329, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15329" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ncomms15329</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Müller, T., Henzing, J. S., de Leeuw, G., Wiedensohler, A., Alastuey, A., Angelov, H., Bizjak, M., Collaud Coen, M., Engström, J. E., Gruening, C., Hillamo, R., Hoffer, A., Imre, K., Ivanow, P., Jennings, G., Sun, J. Y., Kalivitis, N., Karlsson, H., Komppula, M., Laj, P., Li, S.-M., Lunder, C., Marinoni, A., Martins dos Santos, S., Moerman, M., Nowak, A., Ogren, J. A., Petzold, A., Pichon, J. M., Rodriquez, S., Sharma, S., Sheridan, P. J., Teinilä, K., Tuch, T., Viana, M., Virkkula, A., Weingartner, E., Wilhelm, R., and Wang, Y. Q.: Characterization and intercomparison of aerosol absorption photometers: result of two intercomparison workshops, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 4, 245–268, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-245-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-4-245-2011</ext-link>, 2011a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Müller, T., Laborde, M., Kassell, G., and Wiedensohler, A.: Design and performance of a three-wavelength LED-based total scatter and backscatter integrating nephelometer, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 4, 1291–1303, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-1291-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-4-1291-2011</ext-link>, 2011b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Myhre, G., Samset, B. H., Schulz, M., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S., Berntsen, T. K., Bian, H., Bellouin, N., Chin, M., Diehl, T., Easter, R. C., Feichter, J., Ghan, S. J., Hauglustaine, D., Iversen, T., Kinne, S., Kirkevåg, A., Lamarque, J.-F., Lin, G., Liu, X., Lund, M. T., Luo, G., Ma, X., van Noije, T., Penner, J. E., Rasch, P. J., Ruiz, A., Seland, Ø., Skeie, R. B., Stier, P., Takemura, T., Tsigaridis, K., Wang, P., Wang, Z., Xu, L., Yu, H., Yu, F., Yoon, J.-H., Zhang, K., Zhang, H., and Zhou, C.: Radiative forcing of the direct aerosol effect from AeroCom Phase II simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 1853–1877, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1853-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-1853-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ogren, J. A., Wendell, J., Andrews, E., and Sheridan, P. J.: Continuous light absorption photometer for long-term studies, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 4805–4818, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-4805-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-10-4805-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Onasch, T. B., Massoli, P., Kebabian, P. L., Hills, F. B., Bacon, F. W., and
Freedman, A.: Single Scattering Albedo Monitor for Airborne Particulates,
Aerosol Sci. Tech., 49, 267–279,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2015.1022248" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786826.2015.1022248</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Peñaloza, M. A.: Deriving the basic cell-reciprocal integrating
nephelometer equation and its use for calibration purposes: a comprehensive
approach, Meas. Sci. Technol., 10, R1–R15, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/10/1/003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/0957-0233/10/1/003</ext-link>,
1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Perim de Faria, J., Bundke, U., Freedman, A., Onasch, T. B., and Petzold, A.: Laboratory Validation and Field Deployment of a Compact Single-Scattering Albedo (SSA) Monitor, Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss. [preprint], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2019-146" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-2019-146</ext-link>, in review, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Petzold, A. and Schönlinner, M.: Multi-angle absorption photometry – a
new method for the measurement of aerosol light absorption and atmospheric
black carbon, J. Aerosol Sci., 35, 421–441,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2003.09.005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jaerosci.2003.09.005</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Petzold, A., Schloesser, H., Sheridan, P. J., Arnott, W. P., Ogren, J. A.,
and Virkkula, A.: Evaluation of Multiangle Absorption Photometry for
Measuring Aerosol Light Absorption, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 39,
40–51, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290901945" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/027868290901945</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Petzold, A., Onasch, T., Kebabian, P., and Freedman, A.: Intercomparison of a Cavity Attenuated Phase Shift-based extinction monitor (CAPS PMex) with an integrating nephelometer and a filter-based absorption monitor, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 1141–1151, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-1141-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-6-1141-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pfeifer, S., Müller, T., Weinhold, K., Zikova, N., Martins dos Santos, S., Marinoni, A., Bischof, O. F., Kykal, C., Ries, L., Meinhardt, F., Aalto, P., Mihalopoulos, N., and Wiedensohler, A.: Intercomparison of 15 aerodynamic particle size spectrometers (APS 3321): uncertainties in particle sizing and number size distribution, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 1545–1551, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-1545-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-9-1545-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pfeifer, S., Müller, T., Freedman, A., and Wiedensohler, A.: The influence of the baseline drift on the resulting extinction values of a cavity attenuated phase shift-based extinction monitor (CAPS PMex), Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 2161–2167, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-2161-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-13-2161-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page851?><ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Pileci, R. E., Bertò, M., Modini, R. L., Slowik, J. G., Gilardoni, S.,
Rinaldi, M., Orsini, D., Marinoni, A., Baltensperger, U., and Gysel-Beer, M.:
Variability of physical and optical properties of freshly emitted and aged
black carbon particles determined from stationary and mobile measurements in
the Po Valley (Italy), during summertime,
in preparation, 2020a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pileci, R. E., Modini, R. L., Bertò, M., Yuan, J., Corbin, J. C., Marinoni, A., Henzing, B. J., Moerman, M. M., Putaud, J. P., Spindler, G., Wehner, B., Müller, T., Tuch, T., Trentini, A., Zanatta, M., Baltensperger, U., and Gysel-Beer, M.: Comparison of co–located rBC and EC mass concentration measurements during field campaigns at several European sites, Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss. [preprint], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2020-192" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-2020-192</ext-link>, in review, 2020b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Qian, F., Ma, L., and Thompson, J. E.: Modeling and measurements of angular
truncation for an aerosol albedometer, J. Eur. Opt.
Soc.-Rapid, 7, 12021, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2971/jeos.2012.12021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2971/jeos.2012.12021</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Rosen, H., Hansen, A. D. A., Gundel, L., and Novakov, T.: Identification of
the optically absorbing component in urban aerosols, Appl. Opt., 17,
3859–3861, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.17.003859" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/AO.17.003859</ext-link>, 1978.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Samset, B. H., Stjern, C. W., Andrews, E., Kahn, R. A., Myhre, G., Schulz,
M., and Schuster, G. L.: Aerosol Absorption: Progress Towards Global and
Regional Constraints, Curr. Clim. Change Rep., 4, 65–83, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-018-0091-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s40641-018-0091-4</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Sanford, T. J., Murphy, D., Thomson, D. S., and Fox, R. W.: Albedo
Measurements and Optical Sizing of Single Aerosol Particles, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 42,
958–969, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schnaiter, M., Horvath, H., Möhler, O., Naumann, K.-H., Saathoff, H., and
Schöck, O. W.: UV-VIS-NIR spectral optical properties of soot and
soot-containing aerosols, J. Aerosol Sci., 34, 1421–1444,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-8502(03)00361-6" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0021-8502(03)00361-6</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schwarz, J. P., Gao, R. S., Fahey, D. W., Thomson, D. S., Watts, L. A.,
Wilson, J. C., Reeves, J. M., Darbeheshti, M., Baumgardner, D. G., Kok, G.
L., Chung, S. H., Schulz, M., Hendricks, J., Lauer, A., Kärcher, B.,
Slowik, J. G., Rosenlof, K. H., Thompson, T. L., Langford, A. O.,
Loewenstein, M., and Aikin, K. C.: Single-particle measurements of
midlatitude black carbon and light-scattering aerosols from the boundary
layer to the lower stratosphere, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 111, D16207,  <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007076" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JD007076</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sedlacek, A. J.: Real-time detection of ambient aerosols using photothermal
interferometry: Folded Jamin interferometer, Rev. Sci.
Instrum., 77, 064903, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2205623" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1063/1.2205623</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sokolik, I. N. and Toon, O. B.: Incorporation of mineralogical composition
into models of the radiative properties of mineral aerosol from UV to IR
wavelengths, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 104,
9423–9444, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1998JD200048" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/1998JD200048</ext-link>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Stephens, M., Turner, N., and Sandberg, J.: Particle identification by
laser-induced incandescence in a solid-state laser cavity, Appl. Optics,
42, 3726, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.42.003726" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/AO.42.003726</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Strawa, A. W., Castaneda, R., Owano, T., Baer, D. S., and Paldus, B. A.: The
Measurement of Aerosol Optical Properties Using Continuous Wave Cavity
Ring-Down Techniques, J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 20, 454–465,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(2003)20&lt;454:TMOAOP&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0426(2003)20&lt;454:TMOAOP&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>,
2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Tavakoli, F. and Olfert, J. S.: An Instrument for the Classification of
Aerosols by Particle Relaxation Time: Theoretical Models of the Aerodynamic
Aerosol Classifier, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 47, 916–926,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2013.802761" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786826.2013.802761</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Thompson, J. E., Barta, N., Policarpio, D., and DuVall, R.: A fixed frequency
aerosol albedometer, Opt. Express, 16, 2191–2205,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.16.002191" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/OE.16.002191</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Varma, R., Moosmüller, H., and Arnott, W. P.: Toward an ideal integrating
nephelometer, Opt. Lett., 28, 1007, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.28.001007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/OL.28.001007</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Virkkula, A., Ahlquist, N. C., Covert, D. S., Sheridan, P. J., Arnott, W. P.,
and Ogren, J. A.: A Three-Wavelength Optical Extinction Cell for Measuring
Aerosol Light Extinction and Its Application to Determining Light Absorption
Coefficient, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 39, 52–67,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290901918" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/027868290901918</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Weimer, S., Mohr, C., Richter, R., Keller, J., Mohr, M., Prévôt, A.
S. H., and Baltensperger, U.: Mobile measurements of aerosol number and
volume size distributions in an Alpine valley: Influence of traffic versus
wood burning, Atmos. Environ., 43, 624–630,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.10.034" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.10.034</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wind, L. and Szymanski, W. W.: Quantification of scattering corrections to
the Beer-Lambert law for transmittance measurements in turbid media, Meas.
Sci. Technol., 13, 270–275, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/13/3/306" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/0957-0233/13/3/306</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Xie, C., Xu, W., Wang, J., Wang, Q., Liu, D., Tang, G., Chen, P., Du, W., Zhao, J., Zhang, Y., Zhou, W., Han, T., Bian, Q., Li, J., Fu, P., Wang, Z., Ge, X., Allan, J., Coe, H., and Sun, Y.: Vertical characterization of aerosol optical properties and brown carbon in winter in urban Beijing, China, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 165–179, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-165-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-165-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zhai, J., Lu, X., Li, L., Zhang, Q., Zhang, C., Chen, H., Yang, X., and Chen, J.: Size-resolved chemical composition, effective density, and optical properties of biomass burning particles, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 7481–7493, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-7481-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-7481-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Detailed characterization of the CAPS single-scattering albedo monitor (CAPS PMssa) as a field-deployable instrument for measuring aerosol light absorption with the extinction-minus-scattering method</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>The CAPS PMssa monitor is a recently commercialized instrument designed to measure aerosol single-scattering albedo (SSA) with high accuracy (Onasch et al., 2015). The underlying extinction and
scattering coefficient measurements made by the instrument also allow
calculation of aerosol absorption coefficients via the
extinction-minus-scattering (EMS) method. Care must be taken with EMS
measurements due to the occurrence of large subtractive error amplification,
especially for the predominantly scattering aerosols that are typically
found in the ambient atmosphere. Practically this means that although the
CAPS PMssa can measure scattering and extinction coefficients with high
accuracy (errors on the order of 1&thinsp;%–10&thinsp;%), the corresponding errors in
EMS-derived absorption range from  ∼ 10&thinsp;% to greater than
100&thinsp;%. Therefore, we examine the individual error sources in detail with
the goal of constraining these as tightly as possible.</p><p>Our main focus is on the correction of the scattered light truncation effect
(i.e., accounting for the near-forward and near-backward scattered light that is undetectable by the instrument), which we show to be the main source of
underlying error in atmospheric applications. We introduce a new, modular
framework for performing the truncation correction calculation that enables
the consideration of additional physical processes such as reflection from
the instrument's glass sampling tube, which was neglected in an earlier
truncation model. We validate the truncation calculations against
comprehensive laboratory measurements. It is demonstrated that the process
of glass tube reflection must be considered in the truncation calculation,
but that uncertainty still remains regarding the effective length of the
optical cavity. Another important source of uncertainty is the cross-calibration constant that quantitatively links the scattering coefficient
measured by the instrument to its extinction coefficient. We present
measurements of this constant over a period of  ∼ 5 months that
demonstrate that the uncertainty in this parameter is very well constrained
for some instrument units (2&thinsp;%–3&thinsp;%) but higher for others.</p><p>We then use two example field datasets to demonstrate and summarize the
potential and the limitations of using the CAPS PMssa for measuring
absorption. The first example uses mobile measurements on a highway road to
highlight the excellent responsiveness and sensitivity of the instrument,
which enables much higher time resolution measurements of relative
absorption than is possible with filter-based instruments. The second
example from a stationary field site (Cabauw, the Netherlands) demonstrates
how truncation-related uncertainties can lead to large biases in EMS-derived
absolute absorption coefficients. Nevertheless, we use a subset of fine-mode-dominated aerosols from the dataset to show that under certain conditions
and despite the remaining truncation uncertainties, the CAPS PMssa can still
provide consistent EMS-derived absorption measurements, even for atmospheric
aerosols with high SSA. Finally, we present a detailed list of
recommendations for future studies that use the CAPS PMssa to measure
absorption with the EMS method. These recommendations could also be followed
to obtain accurate measurements (i.e., errors less than 5&thinsp;%–10&thinsp;%) of SSA and scattering and extinction coefficients with the instrument.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Anderson, T. L. and Ogren, J. A.: Determining Aerosol Radiative Properties
Using the TSI 3563 Integrating Nephelometer, Aerosol Sci. Tech.,
29, 57–69, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829808965551" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829808965551</a>, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Anderson, T. L., Covert, D. S., Marshall, S. F., Laucks, M. L., Charlson, R.
J., Waggoner, A. P., Ogren, J. A., Caldow, R., Holm, R. L., Quant, F. R.,
Sem, G. J., Wiedensohler, A., Ahlquist, N. A., and Bates, T. S.: Performance
Characteristics of a High-Sensitivity, Three-Wavelength, Total
Scatter/Backscatter Nephelometer, J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 13,
967–986, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(1996)013&lt;0967:PCOAHS&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(1996)013&lt;0967:PCOAHS&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Arnott, P. W., Moosmüller, H., Fred Rogers, C., Jin, T., and Bruch, R.:
Photoacoustic spectrometer for measuring light absorption by aerosol:
instrument description, Atmos. Environ., 33, 2845–2852,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(98)00361-6" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(98)00361-6</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Biskos, G., Paulsen, D., Russell, L. M., Buseck, P. R., and Martin, S. T.: Prompt deliquescence and efflorescence of aerosol nanoparticles, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 4633–4642, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-4633-2006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-4633-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Bohren, C. and Huffman, D. R.: Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small
Particles, edited by: Bohren, C. and Huffman, D. R., Wiley Science Paperback
Series, Weinheim, Germany, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Bond, T. C., Anderson, T. L., and Campbell, D.: Calibration and
Intercomparison of Filter-Based Measurements of Visible Light Absorption by
Aerosols, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 30, 582–600,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/027868299304435" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/027868299304435</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Bond, T. C., Doherty, S. J., Fahey, D. W., Forster, P. M., Berntsen, T.,
DeAngelo, B. J., Flanner, M. G., Ghan, S., Kärcher, B., Koch, D., Kinne,
S., Kondo, Y., Quinn, P. K., Sarofim, M. C., Schultz, M. G., Schulz, M.,
Venkataraman, C., Zhang, H., Zhang, S., Bellouin, N., Guttikunda, S. K.,
Hopke, P. K., Jacobson, M. Z., Kaiser, J. W., Klimont, Z., Lohmann, U.,
Schwarz, J. P., Shindell, D., Storelvmo, T., Warren, S. G., and Zender, C.
S.: Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific
assessment, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118,
5380–5552, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50171" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50171</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Bukowiecki, N., Dommen, J., Prévôt, A. S. H., Richter, R.,
Weingartner, E., and Baltensperger, U.: A mobile pollutant measurement
laboratory – measuring gas phase and aerosol ambient concentrations with
high spatial and temporal resolution, Atmos. Environ., 36,
5569–5579, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00694-5" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00694-5</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Cappa, C., Kotamarthi, R., Sedlacek, A., Flynn, C., Lewis, E., McComiskey,
A., and Riemer, N.: Absorbing Aerosols Workshop Report, US Department of
Energy, Climate and Environmental Sciences Division, Brookhaven National Lab. (BNL), Upton, NY, USA, BNL-112462-2016, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, D., Zhao, Y., Lyu, R., Wu, R., Dai, L., Zhao, Y., Chen, F., Zhang, J.,
Yu, H., and Guan, M.: Seasonal and spatial variations of optical properties
of light absorbing carbon and its influencing factors in a typical polluted
city in Yangtze River Delta, China, Atmos. Environ., 199, 45–54,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.11.022" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.11.022</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Corbin, J. C. and Gysel-Beer, M.: Detection of tar brown carbon with a single particle soot photometer (SP2), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 15673–15690, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-15673-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-15673-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Corbin, J. C., Pieber, S. M., Czech, H., Zanatta, M., Jakobi, G.,
Massabò, D., Orasche, J., El Haddad, I., Mensah, A. A., Stengel, B.,
Drinovec, L., Mocnik, G., Zimmermann, R., Prévôt, A. S. H., and
Gysel, M.: Brown and Black Carbon Emitted by a Marine Engine Operated on
Heavy Fuel Oil and Distillate Fuels: Optical Properties, Size Distributions,
and Emission Factors, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123,
6175–6195, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD027818" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD027818</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Curtis, D. B., Meland, B., Aycibin, M., Arnold, N. P., Grassian, V. H.,
Young, M. A., and Kleiber, P. D.: A laboratory investigation of light
scattering from representative components of mineral dust aerosol at a
wavelength of 550 nm, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, D08210, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009387" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009387</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Dastanpour, R., Momenimovahed, A., Thomson, K., Olfert, J., and Rogak, S.:
Variation of the optical properties of soot as a function of particle mass,
Carbon, 124, 201–211, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2017.07.005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2017.07.005</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Dubovik, O., Holben, B., Eck, T. F., Smirnov, A., Kaufman, Y. J., King, M.
D., Tanré, D., and Slutsker, I.: Variability of Absorption and Optical
Properties of Key Aerosol Types Observed in Worldwide Locations, J. Atmos.
Sci., 59, 590–608, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059&lt;0590:VOAAOP&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059&lt;0590:VOAAOP&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Espinosa, W. R., Martins, J. V., Remer, L. A., Puthukkudy, A., Orozco, D., and Dolgos, G.: In situ measurements of angular-dependent light scattering by aerosols over the contiguous United States, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 3737–3754, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-3737-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-3737-2018</a>, 2018.
</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>
Forestieri, S. D., Helgestad, T. M., Lambe, A. T., Renbaum-Wolff, L., Lack, D. A., Massoli, P., Cross, E. S., Dubey, M. K., Mazzoleni, C., Olfert, J. S., Sedlacek III, A. J., Freedman, A., Davidovits, P., Onasch, T. B., and Cappa, C. D.: Measurement and modeling of the multiwavelength optical properties of uncoated flame-generated soot, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 12141–12159, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-12141-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-12141-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Gerber, H. E.: Portable cell for simultaneously measuring the coefficients
of light scattering and extinction for ambient aerosols, Appl. Opt.,
18, 1009–1014, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.18.001009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.18.001009</a>, 1979.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Han, T., Xu, W., Li, J., Freedman, A., Zhao, J., Wang, Q., Chen, C., Zhang,
Y., Wang, Z., Fu, P., Liu, X., and Sun, Y.: Aerosol optical properties
measurements by a CAPS single scattering albedo monitor: Comparisons between
summer and winter in Beijing, China, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 2513–2526, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025762" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025762</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Hansen, A. D. A., Rosen, H., and Novakov, T.: Carbonaceous Particles in the
Atmosphere 1983 The aethalometer – An instrument for the real-time
measurement of optical absorption by aerosol particles, Sci. Total
Environ., 36, 191–196, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(84)90265-1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(84)90265-1</a>, 1984.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Haywood, J. M. and Shine, K. P.: The effect of anthropogenic sulfate and
soot aerosol on the clear sky planetary radiation budget, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 22, 603–606, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/95GL00075" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/95GL00075</a>, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Heintzenberg, J. and Charlson, R. J.: Design and Applications of the
Integrating Nephelometer: A Review, J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 13,
987–1000, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(1996)013&lt;0987:DAAOTI&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(1996)013&lt;0987:DAAOTI&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Johnson, T. J., Irwin, M., Symonds, J. P. R., Olfert, J. S., and Boies, A.
M.: Measuring aerosol size distributions with the aerodynamic aerosol
classifier, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 52, 655–665,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2018.1440063" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2018.1440063</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Kebabian, P. L., Robinson, W. A., and Freedman, A.: Optical extinction
monitor using cw cavity enhanced detection, Rev. Sci.
Instrum., 78, 063102, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2744223" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2744223</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Koch, D. and Del Genio, A. D.: Black carbon semi-direct effects on cloud cover: review and synthesis, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 7685–7696, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-7685-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-7685-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Kreher, K., Van Roozendael, M., Hendrick, F., Apituley, A., Dimitropoulou, E., Frieß, U., Richter, A., Wagner, T., Lampel, J., Abuhassan, N., Ang, L., Anguas, M., Bais, A., Benavent, N., Bösch, T., Bognar, K., Borovski, A., Bruchkouski, I., Cede, A., Chan, K. L., Donner, S., Drosoglou, T., Fayt, C., Finkenzeller, H., Garcia-Nieto, D., Gielen, C., Gómez-Martín, L., Hao, N., Henzing, B., Herman, J. R., Hermans, C., Hoque, S., Irie, H., Jin, J., Johnston, P., Khayyam Butt, J., Khokhar, F., Koenig, T. K., Kuhn, J., Kumar, V., Liu, C., Ma, J., Merlaud, A., Mishra, A. K., Müller, M., Navarro-Comas, M., Ostendorf, M., Pazmino, A., Peters, E., Pinardi, G., Pinharanda, M., Piters, A., Platt, U., Postylyakov, O., Prados-Roman, C., Puentedura, O., Querel, R., Saiz-Lopez, A., Schönhardt, A., Schreier, S. F., Seyler, A., Sinha, V., Spinei, E., Strong, K., Tack, F., Tian, X., Tiefengraber, M., Tirpitz, J.-L., van Gent, J., Volkamer, R., Vrekoussis, M., Wang, S., Wang, Z., Wenig, M., Wittrock, F., Xie, P. H., Xu, J., Yela, M., Zhang, C., and Zhao, X.: Intercomparison of NO<sub>2</sub>, O<sub>4</sub>, O<sub>3</sub> and HCHO slant column measurements by MAX-DOAS and zenith-sky UV–visible spectrometers during CINDI-2, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 2169–2208, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-2169-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-2169-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Lack, D. A., Lovejoy, E. R., Baynard, T., Pettersson, A., and Ravishankara,
A. R.: Aerosol Absorption Measurement using Photoacoustic Spectroscopy:
Sensitivity, Calibration, and Uncertainty Developments, Aerosol Sci.
Tech., 40, 697–708, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820600803917" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820600803917</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Lack, D. A., Moosmüller, H., McMeeking, G. R., Chakrabarty, R. K., and
Baumgardner, D.: Characterizing elemental, equivalent black, and refractory
black carbon aerosol particles: a review of techniques, their limitations
and uncertainties, Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 406, 99–122,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-013-7402-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-013-7402-3</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Laskin, A., Laskin, J., and Nizkorodov, S. A.: Chemistry of Atmospheric Brown
Carbon, Chem. Rev., 115, 4335–4382, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/cr5006167" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/cr5006167</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Lewis, E. K., Moehnke, C. J., and Manzanares, C. E.: Phase shift cavity ring
down and FT-VIS measurements of C-H (Δv = 5) vibrational overtone
absorptions, Chem. Phys. Lett., 394, 25–31,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2004.06.102" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2004.06.102</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, F., Snelling, D. R., Thomson, K. A., and Smallwood, G. J.: Estimate of
scattering truncation in the cavity attenuated phase shift PMSSA monitor
using radiative transfer theory, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 52,
588–596, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2018.1437891" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2018.1437891</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, L. and Mishchenko, M. I.: Scattering and radiative properties of
complex soot and soot-containing aggregate particles, J.
Quant. Spectrosc. Ra., 106, 262–273,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2007.01.020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2007.01.020</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Massoli, P., Kebabian, P. L., Onasch, T. B., Hills, F. B., and Freedman, A.:
Aerosol Light Extinction Measurements by Cavity Attenuated Phase Shift
(CAPS) Spectroscopy: Laboratory Validation and Field Deployment of a Compact
Aerosol Particle Extinction Monitor, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 44,
428–435, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786821003716599" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786821003716599</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Mishchenko, M. I., Travis, L. D. and Lacis, A. A.: Scattering, Absorption, and Emission of Light by Small Particles, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Modini, R. L., Corbin, J. C., Brem, B. T., Irwin, M., Bertò, M., Pileci, R. E., Fetfatzis, P., Eleftheriadis, K., Henzing, B., Moerman, M. M., Liu, F., Müller, T., and Gyesl-Beer, M.: Data archive for the peer-reviewed journal article “Detailed characterization of the CAPS single scattering albedo monitor (CAPS PMssa) as a field-deployable instrument for measuring aerosol light absorption with the extinction-minus-scattering method”, Zenodo, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4337092" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4337092</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Moosmüller, H. and Arnott, W. P.: Folded Jamin interferometer: a stable
instrument for refractive-index measurements, Opt. Lett., 21,
438–440, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.21.000438" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.21.000438</a>, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Moosmüller, H. and Arnott, W. P.: Angular truncation errors in
integrating nephelometry, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 74,
3492–3501, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1581355" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1581355</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Moosmüller, H., Varma, R., and Arnott, W. P.: Cavity Ring-Down and
Cavity-Enhanced Detection Techniques for the Measurement of Aerosol
Extinction, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 39, 30–39,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290903880" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290903880</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Moosmüller, H., Chakrabarty, R. K., and Arnott, W. P.: Aerosol light
absorption and its measurement: A review, J. Quant.
Spectrosc. Ra., 110, 844–878,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2009.02.035" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2009.02.035</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Moteki, N., Adachi, K., Ohata, S., Yoshida, A., Harigaya, T., Koike, M., and
Kondo, Y.: Anthropogenic iron oxide aerosols enhance atmospheric heating,
Nat. Commun., 8, 15329, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15329" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15329</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Müller, T., Henzing, J. S., de Leeuw, G., Wiedensohler, A., Alastuey, A., Angelov, H., Bizjak, M., Collaud Coen, M., Engström, J. E., Gruening, C., Hillamo, R., Hoffer, A., Imre, K., Ivanow, P., Jennings, G., Sun, J. Y., Kalivitis, N., Karlsson, H., Komppula, M., Laj, P., Li, S.-M., Lunder, C., Marinoni, A., Martins dos Santos, S., Moerman, M., Nowak, A., Ogren, J. A., Petzold, A., Pichon, J. M., Rodriquez, S., Sharma, S., Sheridan, P. J., Teinilä, K., Tuch, T., Viana, M., Virkkula, A., Weingartner, E., Wilhelm, R., and Wang, Y. Q.: Characterization and intercomparison of aerosol absorption photometers: result of two intercomparison workshops, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 4, 245–268, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-245-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-245-2011</a>, 2011a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Müller, T., Laborde, M., Kassell, G., and Wiedensohler, A.: Design and performance of a three-wavelength LED-based total scatter and backscatter integrating nephelometer, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 4, 1291–1303, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-1291-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-4-1291-2011</a>, 2011b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Myhre, G., Samset, B. H., Schulz, M., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S., Berntsen, T. K., Bian, H., Bellouin, N., Chin, M., Diehl, T., Easter, R. C., Feichter, J., Ghan, S. J., Hauglustaine, D., Iversen, T., Kinne, S., Kirkevåg, A., Lamarque, J.-F., Lin, G., Liu, X., Lund, M. T., Luo, G., Ma, X., van Noije, T., Penner, J. E., Rasch, P. J., Ruiz, A., Seland, Ø., Skeie, R. B., Stier, P., Takemura, T., Tsigaridis, K., Wang, P., Wang, Z., Xu, L., Yu, H., Yu, F., Yoon, J.-H., Zhang, K., Zhang, H., and Zhou, C.: Radiative forcing of the direct aerosol effect from AeroCom Phase II simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 1853–1877, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1853-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1853-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Ogren, J. A., Wendell, J., Andrews, E., and Sheridan, P. J.: Continuous light absorption photometer for long-term studies, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 4805–4818, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-4805-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-4805-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Onasch, T. B., Massoli, P., Kebabian, P. L., Hills, F. B., Bacon, F. W., and
Freedman, A.: Single Scattering Albedo Monitor for Airborne Particulates,
Aerosol Sci. Tech., 49, 267–279,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2015.1022248" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2015.1022248</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Peñaloza, M. A.: Deriving the basic cell-reciprocal integrating
nephelometer equation and its use for calibration purposes: a comprehensive
approach, Meas. Sci. Technol., 10, R1–R15, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/10/1/003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/10/1/003</a>,
1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Perim de Faria, J., Bundke, U., Freedman, A., Onasch, T. B., and Petzold, A.: Laboratory Validation and Field Deployment of a Compact Single-Scattering Albedo (SSA) Monitor, Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss. [preprint], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2019-146" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2019-146</a>, in review, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Petzold, A. and Schönlinner, M.: Multi-angle absorption photometry – a
new method for the measurement of aerosol light absorption and atmospheric
black carbon, J. Aerosol Sci., 35, 421–441,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2003.09.005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2003.09.005</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Petzold, A., Schloesser, H., Sheridan, P. J., Arnott, W. P., Ogren, J. A.,
and Virkkula, A.: Evaluation of Multiangle Absorption Photometry for
Measuring Aerosol Light Absorption, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 39,
40–51, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290901945" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290901945</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Petzold, A., Onasch, T., Kebabian, P., and Freedman, A.: Intercomparison of a Cavity Attenuated Phase Shift-based extinction monitor (CAPS PMex) with an integrating nephelometer and a filter-based absorption monitor, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 1141–1151, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-1141-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-1141-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Pfeifer, S., Müller, T., Weinhold, K., Zikova, N., Martins dos Santos, S., Marinoni, A., Bischof, O. F., Kykal, C., Ries, L., Meinhardt, F., Aalto, P., Mihalopoulos, N., and Wiedensohler, A.: Intercomparison of 15 aerodynamic particle size spectrometers (APS 3321): uncertainties in particle sizing and number size distribution, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 1545–1551, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-1545-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-1545-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Pfeifer, S., Müller, T., Freedman, A., and Wiedensohler, A.: The influence of the baseline drift on the resulting extinction values of a cavity attenuated phase shift-based extinction monitor (CAPS PMex), Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 2161–2167, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-2161-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-2161-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Pileci, R. E., Bertò, M., Modini, R. L., Slowik, J. G., Gilardoni, S.,
Rinaldi, M., Orsini, D., Marinoni, A., Baltensperger, U., and Gysel-Beer, M.:
Variability of physical and optical properties of freshly emitted and aged
black carbon particles determined from stationary and mobile measurements in
the Po Valley (Italy), during summertime,
in preparation, 2020a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Pileci, R. E., Modini, R. L., Bertò, M., Yuan, J., Corbin, J. C., Marinoni, A., Henzing, B. J., Moerman, M. M., Putaud, J. P., Spindler, G., Wehner, B., Müller, T., Tuch, T., Trentini, A., Zanatta, M., Baltensperger, U., and Gysel-Beer, M.: Comparison of co–located rBC and EC mass concentration measurements during field campaigns at several European sites, Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss. [preprint], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2020-192" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2020-192</a>, in review, 2020b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Qian, F., Ma, L., and Thompson, J. E.: Modeling and measurements of angular
truncation for an aerosol albedometer, J. Eur. Opt.
Soc.-Rapid, 7, 12021, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2971/jeos.2012.12021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2971/jeos.2012.12021</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Rosen, H., Hansen, A. D. A., Gundel, L., and Novakov, T.: Identification of
the optically absorbing component in urban aerosols, Appl. Opt., 17,
3859–3861, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.17.003859" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.17.003859</a>, 1978.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Samset, B. H., Stjern, C. W., Andrews, E., Kahn, R. A., Myhre, G., Schulz,
M., and Schuster, G. L.: Aerosol Absorption: Progress Towards Global and
Regional Constraints, Curr. Clim. Change Rep., 4, 65–83, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-018-0091-4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-018-0091-4</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Sanford, T. J., Murphy, D., Thomson, D. S., and Fox, R. W.: Albedo
Measurements and Optical Sizing of Single Aerosol Particles, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 42,
958–969, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Schnaiter, M., Horvath, H., Möhler, O., Naumann, K.-H., Saathoff, H., and
Schöck, O. W.: UV-VIS-NIR spectral optical properties of soot and
soot-containing aerosols, J. Aerosol Sci., 34, 1421–1444,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-8502(03)00361-6" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-8502(03)00361-6</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Schwarz, J. P., Gao, R. S., Fahey, D. W., Thomson, D. S., Watts, L. A.,
Wilson, J. C., Reeves, J. M., Darbeheshti, M., Baumgardner, D. G., Kok, G.
L., Chung, S. H., Schulz, M., Hendricks, J., Lauer, A., Kärcher, B.,
Slowik, J. G., Rosenlof, K. H., Thompson, T. L., Langford, A. O.,
Loewenstein, M., and Aikin, K. C.: Single-particle measurements of
midlatitude black carbon and light-scattering aerosols from the boundary
layer to the lower stratosphere, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 111, D16207,  <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007076" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007076</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Sedlacek, A. J.: Real-time detection of ambient aerosols using photothermal
interferometry: Folded Jamin interferometer, Rev. Sci.
Instrum., 77, 064903, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2205623" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2205623</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Sokolik, I. N. and Toon, O. B.: Incorporation of mineralogical composition
into models of the radiative properties of mineral aerosol from UV to IR
wavelengths, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 104,
9423–9444, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1998JD200048" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/1998JD200048</a>, 1999.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Stephens, M., Turner, N., and Sandberg, J.: Particle identification by
laser-induced incandescence in a solid-state laser cavity, Appl. Optics,
42, 3726, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.42.003726" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.42.003726</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Strawa, A. W., Castaneda, R., Owano, T., Baer, D. S., and Paldus, B. A.: The
Measurement of Aerosol Optical Properties Using Continuous Wave Cavity
Ring-Down Techniques, J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 20, 454–465,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(2003)20&lt;454:TMOAOP&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(2003)20&lt;454:TMOAOP&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>,
2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
Tavakoli, F. and Olfert, J. S.: An Instrument for the Classification of
Aerosols by Particle Relaxation Time: Theoretical Models of the Aerodynamic
Aerosol Classifier, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 47, 916–926,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2013.802761" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2013.802761</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
Thompson, J. E., Barta, N., Policarpio, D., and DuVall, R.: A fixed frequency
aerosol albedometer, Opt. Express, 16, 2191–2205,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.16.002191" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.16.002191</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>
Varma, R., Moosmüller, H., and Arnott, W. P.: Toward an ideal integrating
nephelometer, Opt. Lett., 28, 1007, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.28.001007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.28.001007</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>
Virkkula, A., Ahlquist, N. C., Covert, D. S., Sheridan, P. J., Arnott, W. P.,
and Ogren, J. A.: A Three-Wavelength Optical Extinction Cell for Measuring
Aerosol Light Extinction and Its Application to Determining Light Absorption
Coefficient, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 39, 52–67,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290901918" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290901918</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>
Weimer, S., Mohr, C., Richter, R., Keller, J., Mohr, M., Prévôt, A.
S. H., and Baltensperger, U.: Mobile measurements of aerosol number and
volume size distributions in an Alpine valley: Influence of traffic versus
wood burning, Atmos. Environ., 43, 624–630,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.10.034" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.10.034</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>
Wind, L. and Szymanski, W. W.: Quantification of scattering corrections to
the Beer-Lambert law for transmittance measurements in turbid media, Meas.
Sci. Technol., 13, 270–275, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/13/3/306" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/13/3/306</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>
Xie, C., Xu, W., Wang, J., Wang, Q., Liu, D., Tang, G., Chen, P., Du, W., Zhao, J., Zhang, Y., Zhou, W., Han, T., Bian, Q., Li, J., Fu, P., Wang, Z., Ge, X., Allan, J., Coe, H., and Sun, Y.: Vertical characterization of aerosol optical properties and brown carbon in winter in urban Beijing, China, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 165–179, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-165-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-165-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>
Zhai, J., Lu, X., Li, L., Zhang, Q., Zhang, C., Chen, H., Yang, X., and Chen, J.: Size-resolved chemical composition, effective density, and optical properties of biomass burning particles, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 7481–7493, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-7481-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-7481-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
