Articles | Volume 15, issue 10
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 3189–3192, 2022
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 3189–3192, 2022
Peer-reviewed comment
25 May 2022
Peer-reviewed comment | 25 May 2022

Comment on “Comparison of ozone measurement methods in biomass burning smoke: an evaluation under field and laboratory conditions” by Long et al. (2021)

Noah Bernays et al.

Related authors

Intensive aerosol properties of Boreal and regional biomass burning aerosol at Mt. Bachelor Observatory: Larger and BC-dominant particles transported from Siberian wildfires
Nathaniel May, Noah Bernays, Ryan Farley, Qi Zhang, and Daniel Jaffe
Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.,,, 2022
Preprint under review for ACP
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Gases | Technique: In Situ Measurement | Topic: Validation and Intercomparisons
Characterization of inexpensive metal oxide sensor performance for trace methane detection
Daniel Furuta, Tofigh Sayahi, Jinsheng Li, Bruce Wilson, Albert A. Presto, and Jiayu Li
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 5117–5128,,, 2022
Short summary
Intercomparison of upper tropospheric and lower stratospheric water vapor measurements over the Asian Summer Monsoon during the StratoClim campaign
Clare E. Singer, Benjamin W. Clouser, Sergey M. Khaykin, Martina Krämer, Francesco Cairo, Thomas Peter, Alexey Lykov, Christian Rolf, Nicole Spelten, Armin Afchine, Simone Brunamonti, and Elisabeth J. Moyer
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 4767–4783,,, 2022
Short summary
Air pollution measurement errors: is your data fit for purpose?
Sebastian Diez, Stuart E. Lacy, Thomas J. Bannan, Michael Flynn, Tom Gardiner, David Harrison, Nicholas Marsden, Nicholas A. Martin, Katie Read, and Pete M. Edwards
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 4091–4105,,, 2022
Short summary
Performance characterization of low-cost air quality sensors for off-grid deployment in rural Malawi
Ashley S. Bittner, Eben S. Cross, David H. Hagan, Carl Malings, Eric Lipsky, and Andrew P. Grieshop
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 3353–3376,,, 2022
Short summary
Homogenization of the Observatoire de Haute Provence electrochemical concentration cell (ECC) ozonesonde data record: comparison with lidar and satellite observations
Gérard Ancellet, Sophie Godin-Beekmann, Herman G. J. Smit, Ryan M. Stauffer, Roeland Van Malderen, Renaud Bodichon, and Andrea Pazmiño
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 3105–3120,,, 2022
Short summary

Cited articles

Brey, S. J. and Fischer, E. V.: Smoke in the city: how often and where does smoke impact summertime ozone in the United States?, Environ. Sci. Technol., 50, 1288–1294,, 2016. 
Crutzen, P. J. and Andreae, M. O.: Biomass burning in the tropics: Impact on atmospheric chemistry and biogeochemical cycles, Science, 250, 1669–1678, 1990. 
Crutzen, P. J., Heidt, L. E., Krasnec, J. P., Pollock, W. H., and Seiler, W.: Biomass burning as a source of atmospheric gases CO, H2, N2O, NO, CH3Cl, and COS, Nature, 282, 253–256, 1979. 
Gao, H. and Jaffe, D. A.: Comparison of ultraviolet absorbance and NO-chemiluminescence for ozone measurement in wildfire plumes at the Mount Bachelor Observatory, Atmos. Environ., 166, 224–233,, 2017. 
Gong, X., Kaulfus, A., Nair, U., and Jaffe, D. A: Quantifying O3 impacts in urban areas due to wildfires using a generalized additive model, Environ. Sci. Technol., 51, 13216–13223,, 2017. 
Short summary
Ozone is an important pollutant that impacts millions of people worldwide. It is therefore important to ensure accurate measurements. A recent surge in wildfire activity in the USA has resulted in significant enhancements in ozone concentration. However given the nature of wildfire smoke, there are questions about our ability to accurately measure ozone. In this comment, we discuss possible biases in the UV measurements of ozone in the presence of smoke.